Opinion ID: 2110319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Action For Negligence.

Text: We must, of course, consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff in order to determine whether the ruling of the lower court was proper with respect to the count for negligence. There was evidence, or at least an inference, that the removal of the wooden part of the bridge had dangerously reduced the likelihood of the supporting beams being seen by those who were required to work (as the plaintiff was) in the back of an open trash truck of the kind that were in general use by the sanitation department. There was evidence to support an inference that the owners of the buildings or their predecessors in title may have failed to exercise due care when that part of the alley bridge most likely to be seen was removed without permission and the use of the remaining portion was discontinued. And there was positive evidence that the obstruction which had been allowed to remain was not posted on the day of the accident with a sign or other device designed to attract the attention of motorists using the alley and thereby warn them of the height of the clearance under the beams. It is therefore the contention of the plaintiff that the cumulative effect of these facts and circumstances was sufficient evidence for the jury to consider whether the defendants were in fact negligent. We agree. While we have not been referred to, nor have we found, a case in the District of Columbia founded on negligence for failure to use due care in maintaining a private bridge above a public alley, there are analogous cases based on negligence in other jurisdictions with respect to the maintenance of railroad trestles and bridges over public streets and highways. The principle of these cases is that a franchise holder has a duty to so construct and thereafter maintain such structures as to meet the demands of public travel, and, when required, to take precautionary measures to warn travelers of the existence of a dangerous condition. In Illinois Central R. Co. v. Farris, 259 F.2d 445 (C.A. 5 1958), where it was held that a railroad must so construct its trestles as to afford reasonably sufficient clearance or headway for ordinary vehicular traffic, the Court, citing 3 Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, § 1872, pointed out (at p. 447) that [t]his duty does not cease when a State Road Commission or other appropriate state authority approves the construction of a bridge and underpass. See also Contino v. Baltimore & Annapolis R. Co., 178 F.2d 521 (C.A. 4 1949), in which it was said that the duty of a railroad to maintain its highway bridges is a continuing one requiring consideration of changing conditions. And cf. Whitby v. Balto., C. & A. Ry. Co., 96 Md. 700, 54 Atl. 674 (1903). Other than the point with respect to the construction and continued maintenance of highway bridges, there is another important factor in this case concerning the absence of notice or a warning. In Krause v. Southern Pac. Co., 295 Pac. 966 (Ore. 1931), in which the facts were quite similar to those in the case at bar, a farm boy, standing in the back of an open freight truck tending pigs, was injured when his head came in contact with a steel girder as the truck passed under an overhead railroad trestle. It was there held that, absent notice to the contrary, the occupant of the body of the truck had a right to rely on the assumption that the railroad company and the municipality (which had also been sued) would not maintain an obstruction to the highway that was dangerous to those using it by ordinary means of travel. Furthermore, even if it is assumed that the owners had obtained permission to leave the steel beams above the alley, there would still be a question of fact as to whether notice of their existence should have been given by a sign or other warning device. See Barrett v. Southern Pac. Co., 277 Pac. 481 (Cal. 1929), where, in a case involving the construction of a pier in the middle of a highway to support a railroad trestle, the Court, in pointing out that climatic conditions required a color scheme on the pier different from the grayish color of the fog, stated (at p. 484) that the exercise of ordinary care would require the installation of red lights or other danger signals on or near the pier as a warning to travelers. Whether or not the defendants were guilty of negligence was clearly a question of fact for the jury, and we so hold.