Court Opinion

ID: 9454160
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:38:12.086809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:59.882629
License: Public Domain

GUINN, District Judge
(dissenting):
I can not concur in the majority opinion affirming this case. While the case was not fully developed and in my opinion should be before any final disposition of it, I believe that from the evidence that was offered a jury question is presented. It is agreed that the Federal Rule of sufficiency of evidence applies in this case and that rule requires that all testimony unfavorable to the Plaintiff be disregarded. We must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences most favorably to the party against whom the Motion is made. Moreover only the evidence and the reasonable inferences which support the appellant’s theory may be considered. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States v. Fry, 386 F.2d 239; Shirey v. Louisville and Nashville RR., 5 Cir., 327 F.2d 549, and Lohr v. Tittle, 10 Cir., 275 F.2d 662.
The majority state that there was no evidence of any negligence on the part of the Railroad. I can not agree with this. I believe the evidence establishes negligence in the first instance in failing to keep the crossing in question in proper repair. The record establishes that this crossing was a dangerous crossing by virtue of its construction and surrounding area. It was built in a curve and the crossing was banked.
The engineer testified that he saw the car approach the crossing, get on the crossing and stop and he put on his brakes. I quote part of the engineer’s testimony — “I could see the crossing but the cars come out from behind from over the houses and I can’t see the car until it gets pretty close to that crossing” and “Well, there’s two roads run into this road; and then my vision is obscured; I couldn’t see a car until it gets pretty close to that crossing” and “Q. What did she do? A. She drove up on the crossing and apparently she stopped; she was driving slow when she crossed that crossing and apparently she stopped. Q. On the track? A. Yes sir. Q. It’s (the track) banked considably, isn’t it? A. Yes sir” and “and then I began — I knocked my brakes off. I thought the car was gone.” It is obvious that the Plaintiff was in a perilous position and by virtue thereof the last clear chance doctrine of Georgia as set forth in Palmer v. Stevens, 115 Ga.App. 398, 154 S.E.2d 803, became applicable. There the Court stated “Under the last clear chance theory, as applied in Georgia, is only where the defendant knows of the other person’s perilous situation and realizes or has reason to realize the other’s helpless condition, that defendant is charged with a duty of using with reasonable care and competency his then existing ability to avoid harming the other person.”
Certainly after Plaintiff was found in a perilous position his conduct thereafter as to whether he (the engineer) acted reasonably became a question of fact for the jury.
It is difficult to understand why or how an engineer who was keeping a proper lookout could fail to keep his eyes on a dangerous crossing of this kind and if Plaintiff did in truth and in fact get off of the crossing how he could fail to see her come back on the crossing. These are questions for a jury to decide.
Furthermore, it is certainly a jury question as to whether or not the Plain*605tiff was still in a perilous position under the circumstances when the engineer released his brakes and paid no further attention to her. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff was negligent in getting back on the crossing if she did. But it is a jury question whether or not she ever got off of the crossing.
I believe that the majority is passing on the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony. The engineer is in the same position as an adverse party and the jury could accept all or any part or none of his testimony as being true.