Court Opinion

ID: 9446973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:22:45.796114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:51.529249
License: Public Domain

POPE, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree that the judgment of the district court must be affirmed; but since I have certain reservations with respect to the reasons given for the affirmance in the majority opinion, I prefer to base my concurrence upon another ground.
The gist of the majority opinion seems-to be stated in the quotation from the memorandum decision of the trial court which appears at the end of the opinion. The statement there approved recites: “The voluntary assumption of such a program [accident prevention and safety program] for the welfare of all parties-concerned should not create liability on the part of the defendant to the employees of contractors where the performance, or failure to perform, in no wise increases the hazard to the employees of the contractor beyond that which would otherwise have been present.” I think there are two things wrong about that statement. First, I think it. cannot be said that the failure of the Government’s Construction Engineer and Inspector to carry out the duties prescribed for them in Article 30 of the contract and of the manual “Safety Requirements”, and of the other manuals and regulations from which the opinion quotes, did not increase the hazard to Kirk.
Had these officers insisted upon the life preservers, the ring buoys, the life saving skiffs, or other rescue equipment, the hazard to an employee who fell into the water, either because of the negligent manner in which the forms were being removed, or because of the failure to furnish a net, would have been substantially lessened. It is self-evident, I think, that had these Government officers performed their prescribed duties, Kirk might not have lost his life.
The second thing wrong about that statement is that it overlooks the principle illustrated by the ancient story of the blind man crossing the street. If a bystander simply observes a blind man trying to thread his way through traffic across a busy street and does nothing he is not responsible for an accident to the blind person; on the other hand, if he voluntarily assumes to help the'blind man across the street he immediately comes *119under a duty to perforin his guidance with reasonable care. This is the principle applied and illustrated in the case of Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 76 S.Ct. 122, 100 L.Ed. 48. There the action based on the provisions of the same act here involved was predicated on the negligence of the Coast Guard in the operation of a lighthouse. No statute required the Coast Guard to undertake the lighthouse service. I assume here also that no statute or regulation having the force of law required the Government Contracting Engineer or the Government Inspector or the department •of which they were members to institute, carry on or enforce a safety inspection program.
But in the Indian Towing case the Coast Guard did undertake the lighthouse service. Speaking of the consequence of such an undertaking generally, the Court said (350 U.S. at page 64, 76 S.Ct. at page 124): “[I]t is hornbook tort law that one who undertakes to warn the public of danger and thereby induces reliance must perform his ‘good Samaritan’ task in a careful manner.” The Court went on to say: “The Coast Guard need not undertake the lighthouse service. But once it exercised its discretion to operate a light on Chandeleur Island and engendered reliance on the guidance afforded by the light, it was obligated to use due care to make certain that the light was kept in good working order; and, if the light did become extinguished, then the Coast Guard was further obligated to use due care to discover this fact and to repair the light or give warning that it was not functioning. If the Coast Guard failed in its duty and damage was thereby caused to petitioners, the United States is liable under the Tort Claims Act.”
It seems to me that that precise principle might be applied to demonstrate a ■ duty on the part of the Government and the corps of engineers of the Army to exercise reasonable care in the performance of the service which was voluntarily undertaken by them in the contract and in the practical operation of the construction enterprise. I call attention to the purpose stated expressly in the sentences quoted from Article 30 of the contract: “In order to provide safety controls for protection to the life and health of employees and other persons; * * * the Contractor will comply with all pertinent provisions of the manual ‘Safety Requirements’ approved by the Chief of Engineers. * * * (c) The Contracting officer will notify the Contractor of any noncompliance with the foregoing provisions and the action to be taken.”
I note that while the article in question imposes certain obligations on the contractors, it also prescribes certain duties undertaken by the Contracting officer for the corps of engineers. Not only was this obligation on the part of the Contracting officer made a part of the contract, but it was further implemented by the Army regulations and the Safety Policy and Procedure Manual set forth in the majority opinion.
It is also plain that the Army employees charged with this undertaking were actually on the job; and they did, albeit in a half-hearted manner, carry on the same safety inspection work. Thus the Inspector Emore testified that he was inspecting to see that the safety regulations were complied with: “Q. Will you state what those contract provisions were that you were inspecting the enforcement of so far as safety was concerned? A. To see if they had safety belts on and see if scaffolding was there.” He stated that his instructions were to “see if there is safe working conditions around in general.”
It also seems plain that there was an obvious failure to discover or call attention to the lack of safety equipment either to catch a man after a fall or to save him from the water. For these reasons I find it difficult to agree that a duty cannot arise out of a voluntary assumption of a program of accident prevention and safety.
The court found that the deceased William M. Kirk was guilty of contributory *120negligence.1 While appellant argues that in view of the short length of rope provided for his belt, and in view of the necessity for Kirk to move about on the scaffold, he could not be charged with negligence, it cannot be said that this finding of the trial court was clearly erroneous. . It was for the trial judge to say whether Kirk conducted himself with reasonable care.
Appellant seeks to avoid the effect of this finding of negligence by arguing that Kirk’s failure to have the rope connected with the steel structure was not the proximate cause of his death. This is stated in the appellant’s brief as follows : “ * * * even if the Plaintiff’s deceased was contributorily negligent at the time the scaffold broke, this negligence is not a bar to recovery based upon Defendant’s negligence to rescue him once he began to fall and later after he was swimming in the river.” This contention is developed by appellant further as follows: “In our case, Defendant was charged with the duty of having a safety program which included rescuing persons who may fall in the water. The evidence conclusively shows that the fall from the scaffold into the river did not injure Mr. Kirk, for after he landed in the water he was heard to shout and was seen to paddle to keep himself afloat. The evidence shows that after he was swept into the tunnel under the dam he was never seen again until found dead miles downstream. He clearly drowned after being in the water. The cause of his death is not related to any possible negligence in his not having a safety belt fastened, but is proximately related to failure to either catch him in his fall before he entered the river or to rescue him once he was in the river. The case is very similar to the steam boat case above cited, the liability of Defendant in our case resting on its pre-existing charge by statute to provide safety measures, instead of upon notice of peril, as set out in that ease.”
The steam boat case referred to in the language just quoted was the case of Pate v. Tar Heel Steam Boat Co., 148 N.C. 571, 62 S.E. 614, where, as appellant says, the steamboat company was held liable “ * * * upon the ground that, after discovering the peril of the plaintiff’s intestate, the master and servants of (steamboat company) failed to make all reasonable efforts to rescue him. * * ”
This, of course, was a typical case for the application of the so-called “last clear chance” doctrine. That doctrine is applied under circumstances such as those stated in Short v. Boise Valley Traction Co., 38 Idaho 593, 225 P. 398, 399, where the court quoted from Grand Trunk R. Co. of Canada v. Ives, 144 U.S. 408, 12 S.Ct. 679, 36 L.Ed. 485: “[T]he contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence, have avoided the consequences of the injured party’s negligence.”
Generally speaking the rule is applied when it can be said that “notwithstanding plaintiff’s contributory negligence defendant may be found liable if the jury should find that plaintiff was in a position of peril of which he was oblivious, that defendant was aware, or had he exercised reasonable care would have been aware, of plaintiff’s peril and obliviousness thereof, and that thereafter defendant by the exercise of reasonable care could have avoided the accident.” Rankin v. Shayne Brothers, Inc., 98 U.S.App.D.C. 214, 234 F.2d 35, 38. (Emphasis mine) See also Schweitzer v. Gilmore, 2 Cir., 251 F.2d 171. Obviously this is not just such a case, for it is apparent that after Kirk fell into the water the appellee or its representatives did not then have the chance *121or opportunity, under the circumstances then existing, to prevent his death.
What appellant is arguing for is an extension of the principle applied in the ordinary case involving the last chance doctrine to a case where the defendant would have had an opportunity to observe the danger of the plaintiff but is unable to rescue or to avoid injury to him because of prior negligence in failing to provide proper equipment through which he might have had a last chance to avoid the injury. Appellant’s effort so to extend the last chance principle finds some support in the Restatement of the Law of Torts, in Comment (b) under § 479. There the statement is made: “The duty of vigilance which the defendant owes to plaintiff may require not only that the defendant must be attentive to his surroundings, but also that he shall be so equipped as to make his attention effective.”
Mr. Prosser, in his text on the Law of Torts, (2nd ed., C. 10, § 52, p. 295) discusses the theory which appellant here presents as follows: “A further problem arises where the defendant, after discovery of the danger, does what he can to avoid the injury, but his prior negligence prevents his efforts from being effective — as, for example, where he tries to stop his car, but cannot do so because of defective brakes. No reason is evident in such a case for distinguishing between the antecedent negligence of the defendant and that of the plaintiff who has got himself into danger; and most courts deny recovery.”
Prosser cites the cases pro and con noting that recovery was sustained in the English case of British Columbia Electric Ry. Ltd. v. Loach, 1 A.C. 719; and similar recovery allowed in the decisions in five states in the United States. The weight of authority is to the contrary as the cases cited by Prosser demonstrate.2
So far as I can discover, the Supreme Court of Idaho has never had occasion to deal with a set of facts which would give rise to a discussion of this precise problem. It would appear therefore that we are not warranted in assuming that the State of Idaho would follow the minority view in respect to this question. On the other hand, it would appear that the Idaho Supreme Court’s statement of the last clear chance doctrine tends to be in line with the majority view which would reject the position sought to be taken by the appellant. Thus in Laidlaw v. Barker, 78 Idaho 67, 297 P.2d 287, 291, the Idaho court emphasizes the necessity of lapse of time from the moment when plaintiff’s peril becomes apparent, sufficient to permit the defendant after that time to have a last clear chance to avoid the accident. Speaking of the doctrine the court there stated: “That doctrine implies thought, appreciation, mental direction and lapse of sufficient time effectually so to act as to save another from injury to which he has negligently exposed himself. It is not applicable where the emergency is so sudden that there is no time to avert the accident. In the case here, the act which created the peril occurred at practically the same time as the accident in that only six-tenths to seven-tenths of a second, mathematically calculated, elapsed from the time the Laidlaw boy’s peril became apparent to appellant Barker before the accident; under the circumstances appellants did not have a last clear chance to avoid the accident. The last clear chance must be a clear one.”
I am therefore of the view that a finding of decedent’s negligence, which of course was a proximate cause of what happened to him, is a bar to his recovery and for this reason alone the judgment must be affirmed.

. “IX — That the deceased, William M. Kirk, was guilty of contributory negligence so as to bar recovery by bis heirs in this action by reason of the fact that he did not exercise due care in having the rope connected with his safety belt attached to the steel structure.”

. Harper and James, The Law of Torts, § 22.13, note 34, collects the same cases, and the authors say (p. 1254): “In the situation we are discussing the great weight of American authority, logically enough, refuses to hold the defendant.”
A most thorough and useful discussion of the precise question here referred to is to be found in Anderson v. Bing-ham & Garfield Ry. Co., 117 Utah 197, 214 P.2d 607.