Court Opinion

ID: 9676034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:12:49.244368+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:42.930538
License: Public Domain

CONKLTNG-, J.
(concurring). — I concur in the prin-
cipal opinion prepared by Judge Van Osdol. Hereinbelow I set out additional reasons for my concurrence in the view that plaintiff did not exercise ordinary care for his own safety and that he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
Plaintiff testified as follows:
“Q. Now, when you walked back south to the tracks, did you ever look east to see if there was any street car coming west there ? A. I didn’t turn east and look particularly for streetcars, no, sir.
Q. Did you, whether you looked particularly or not, did you look at all to see if a streetcar was coming? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you look east? A. Yes, sir. I didn’t turn and look east, but facing south, if there had been a car along there, I would have seen that ear.
Q. Do 3rou remember in this deposition on August 18, 1950, being asked this question and giving this answer ? Page 24:
‘Q. Before you started walking across Union, 18 inches from the street car rail, did you look at your left or to the east to see.if there was any streetcar there? A. No, sir.’
Q. Do you remember being asked that question and making that answer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is that correct? A. I didn’t look directly east, no.
# * m # * *
Q. Now, can you explain why 3>-ou gave that answer if it is not correct? A. I did not look particularly for a streetcar, I looked for a reasonable amount of caution. I was walking south in the face of automobile traffic which was quite heavy, and you naturally have a certain amount of left-hand vision, or to the east when you are facing south. You put the question, did I look for a streetcar. I didn’t look for a streetcar, I looked for anything that might be approaching that I might be in danger of.
Q. Was that answer correct? A. To a certain extent, yes, sir.
Q. Was it incorrect to a certain extent? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In what way was it incorrect ? A. I didn’t look for a streetcar, I did look to the left for anything that might be approaching, *491but not particularly just to see if there was a streetcar coming. If there had been a streetcar within fifty or seventy-five feet, why, I would have seen it. * * *
Q. Do you remember this next question and next answer, immediately following the ones I just read to you, being asked and answered: ‘ Q. Well, am I correct in this: That at no time from the time that you got out of your ear until the time that you were hit, did you look to the east to see if any streetcar was coming westwardly? A. No, sir, I didn’t look. Q. You did not look at any time? A. No. ’ Do you remember those questions being asked and those answers being given by you? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were they correct when given?
A. It still bears the thought that I didn’t look particularly for a streetcar.
Q. Did you understand the questions at the time I asked them of you? A. I think I did.
Q. Did you understand this question, I am now reading the last one:‘Q. You did not look at any time? A. No.’ Did you understand that question when you gave that answer? A. Yes, sir.
Q. From the time that you reached the point 12 or 18 inches north of the northern rail of the westbound tracks here, as you walked back to the tracks, and as you walked westwardly across the street, did you at any time, from the time you started walking westwardly by the tracks, look eastwardly to see if any streetcar was coming? A. No, [674] sir, when I turned my back to-the east, I didn’t look back.”
Thus plaintiff testified he never looked to the east to see if a street car was approaching. He merely said that “if there had been a street car within 50 or 75 feet” of Union that he would have seen it. But he did not look for any approaching street car. He did not even consider or think “of the possibility of being struck by street car traffic”, and paid no attention to it whatever. Plaintiff knew that he was within 12 or 15 or 18 inches of the north rail and knew that street cars ran west on that track 24 hours a day. The very existence of the track near to which he knew he was walking was of itself a warning signal of danger. Not having looked “particularly for street cars”, and not knowing whether one was approaching from the east, plaintiff turned his back upon his known source of danger and walked west across Union in the path of the overhang without giving thought to even “the possibility of being struck”.
Under this record as I read it I do not see how it could be said that plaintiff gave any thought whatever to whether it was or was not safe to do what he did, or how it could be said that plaintiff *492made any assumptions of any kind, reasonable or unreasonable, with respect to what might or might not happen. As noted in the principal opinion, and as conceded in the dissenting opinion, plaintiff just did not think at all (as shown by his own testimony) “of the possibility of being struck by street car traffic”.
As I.read the Missouri eases I believe the rule long adhered to is: that when a pedestrian takes a position on or so near to a street railway track that he will be struck by a passing street car, and in which position he is unable to even observe the approach of a street car, and when he knows the track is intermittently used by street cars, and when he neither looks nor listens for an approaching street car and gives no attention thereto, that such pedestrian is so contributorily negligent as a matter of law that he. is barred from recovery upon any theory of primary negligence. Brockschmidt v. St. L. & M. R. R. Co., 205 Mo. 435, 103 S. W. 964, Davies v. Peoples Ry. Co., 159 Mo. 1, 59 S.W. 982, Young v. St. Louis Pub. Serv. Co., (Mo. App.) 57 S.W. (2d) 717, Thomas v. Wells, (Mo. App.) 299 S.W. 72, Strutman v. United Rys. Co., (Mo. App.) 238 S.W. 817.
I think the evidence in this case shows that, with indifference to his own safety, plaintiff, sui juris, voluntarily took a place he knew to be dangerous, that he thereupon engaged in such an undertaking (in walking west across Union in dangerous proximity to the north rail) as deprived him of any view or knowledge of any approaching car which might strike him, and that while walking ■ west he made no effort to determine whether a street car was approaching from the east. I think his conduct barred his own recovery upon primary negligence.