Court Opinion

ID: 9683837
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:37:48.248891+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:50.560777
License: Public Domain

DALTON, J.
I concur in the result reached in the principal opinion. While I think instruction 1 has the same defects as the instruction considered in the case of Harrington v. Thompson, 243 S. W. (2d) 519 mentioned in the principal opinion, and that it is subject to the same criticism, yet I think that any error in the form of the instruction was not prejudicial in this case. I think that plaintiff only made out a case for the jury on humanitarian negligence in failing to slacken the speed of the train. This issue of negligence was submitted in the conjunctive with humanitarian negligence in failing to warn. This additional assignment of negligence was, I believe, not supported by evidence, there being insufficient evidence to show that, after deceased was apparently oblivious and was in imminent peril, a warning could have been given and the collision avoided. In such situation, and considering all of the instructions which were given to the jury, I do not believe the jury could have been mislead by instruction 1 to the prejudice of appellant.