Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/275/236/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:22:16+00:00

Document:
1. By the doctrine of the last clear chance, a negligent defendant will be held liable to a negligent plaintiff if the defendant, aware of the plaintiff's peril, had in fact a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avert an accident. But, where, as a result of the negligent operation of a railway motor car by defendant's agent, with plaintiff's acquiescence or encouragement, the car was derailed and plaintiff injured, their courses of conduct were not so independent that either one or the other could be said to have had in fact a later opportunity to avoid the consequence of their joint negligence, and the doctrine was therefore inapplicable. P. 275 U. S. 241.
2. Instructions in such a case held sufficiently favorable to the plaintiff on the subject of contributory negligence. P. 275 U. S. 242.
Certiorari, 271 U.S. 69, to a judgment of the circuit court of appeals which reversed a judgment entered on a verdict in the district court in favor of the railway company in an action for personal injuries brought against it by Ellzey. The jurisdiction of the district court was based on diversity of citizenship.
Respondent, a United States deputy marshal, was assigned to guard Merchant, a telegraph lineman employed by petitioner, from violence by strikers. He went with Merchant to repair a telegraph line, and, while returning with him on a motorcar over petitioner's railroad, the car was derailed and respondent injured. Respondent brought the present suit in the District Court for Western Louisiana to recover his injuries. The trial by jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant, the petitioner here. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 12 F.2d 4, reversed the judgment, holding that an instruction to the jury by the trial judge was erroneous.
"If you should find that, in this case, the plaintiff urged, directed, or counseled the driver of the car to run it at a reckless and high rate of speed, and that, as a result of such reckless running, [of] the car was injured, then that would be contributory negligence which would bar his recovery, or if he saw that the car was being negligently run, in such a manner as, with the knowledge that he had before him at the time, a man placed in his position must reasonably have known that to continue in the situation he was in was dangerous, without protesting or desisting and removing himself from the perilous situation at the earliest possible moment, then that would be an act of omission which would contribute to the injury, and would in law constitute contributory negligence."
Suburban Ry., 207 U. S. 302. . . . The plaintiff's right to recover was not barred if his negligence was only a remote cause of his injury and Merchant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of it."
This language suggests that the circuit court of appeals thought this case to be governed by the doctrine of the last clear chance. That doctrine, rightly applied in the Chunn case, amounts to no more than this, that a negligent defendant will be held liable to a negligent plaintiff if the defendant, aware of the plaintiff's peril or unaware of it only through carelessness, had in fact a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avert an accident. Grand Trunk Ry. v. Ives, 144 U. S. 408, 144 U. S. 428; Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 551, 139 U. S. 558. In the cases applying the rule, the parties have been engaged in independent courses of negligent conduct. The classic instance is that in which the plaintiff had improvidently left his animal tied in a roadway, where it was injured by the defendant's negligent operation of his vehicle. Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. 546. It rests on the assumption that he is the more culpable whose opportunity to avoid the injury was later.
On the facts assumed by the circuit court of appeals -- that Merchant was driving the car recklessly with respondent's encouragement or acquiescence -- the respondent and Merchant were engaged in a common venture which, acting together, they were carrying on in a careless manner. In such a case, their courses of conduct are not sufficiently independent to let it be said that either one or the other had in fact a later opportunity to avoid the consequences of their joint negligence. Compare St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. v. Schumacher, 152 U. S. 77; Wheelock v. Clay, 13 F.2d 972; Kinney v. Chicago Great Western R. Co., 17 F.2d 708; Denver City Tramway Co. v. Cobb, 164 F. 41.
"or if he saw that the car was being negligently run in such a manner, as with the knowledge that he had before him at the time, a man placed in his position must reasonably have known that to continue in the situation he was in was dangerous, without protesting or desisting and removing himself from the perilous situation at the earliest possible moment, then that would be an act of omission which would contribute to the injury, and would in law constitute contributory negligence."
"would not be held to have assumed the risk of an injury resulting from the defendant's negligence merely because the plaintiff failed to interpose his judgment against that of the defendant, unless you find that a man of ordinary care and prudence, so situated, would have abandoned the car."
We think these instructions and others of similar import, read as we must read them in the light of the whole charge, were sufficiently favorable to the respondent on the subject of contributory negligence. Perhaps it would have been permissible to tell the jury that, though respondent had at an earlier moment encouraged or acquiesced in Merchant's recklessness, he might still recover if, later and before the accident, he repented and asked Merchant to drive carefully. But the court's failure to do so in the absence of a specific request seems to us not to be ground for reversal.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.