Opinion ID: 2105341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: February 16, 1990 (Hopper Car)

Text: The trial court submitted three specifications of contributory negligence concerning the hopper car incident: (1) failing to request additional physical assistance if that assistance was indicated, (2) failing to request or utilize additional equipment if indicated, and (3) failing to avoid work in a crouched and awkward position. The parties adduced testimony that Gustafson did not request assistance from his teammate, Knippel. Knippel's and Gustafson's testimony concurs in that regard. Although there was testimony that a 5-foot pry bar was available, the evidence showed that Gustafson continued to use a 30-inch pry bar, which did not provide maximum leverage. This evidence reasonably could be viewed in a light consistent with Burlington's first two specifications of contributory negligence. Similarly, Gustafson's testimony and the exhibits concerning Gustafson's location and position reasonably could be viewed in a light consistent with Burlington's contention that Gustafson continued to work in a crouched and awkward position. The inferences to be drawn from this evidence were reserved to the jury. The trial court properly submitted these allegations of contributory negligence.