Court Opinion

ID: 9675121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:42:39.443184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:23.468845
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellee Meeks has filed an able motion for rehearing vigorously urging that we erred in holding there was no evidence of probative force showing that appellee’s perilous position was discovered by the employees of the railway company in time for them to have avoided the collision, and erred in holding that, as a matter of lawr the evidence viewed in its most favorable light to the verdict and the judgment did not raise the issue of discovered peril. In support of this contention, appellee points out testimony which he urges is inconsistent with and contrary to our determination of certain material facts. He particularly refers us to the testimony of the witness Dyer that the engine was just barely approaching the inside westbound lane when he saw appellee’s automobile the second time and that if the engineer Baker had reacted to the “wash out” signal fast enough, appellee could possibly have passed safely in front of the train. Appellee urges the above testimony by Dyer as evidence of probative force showing that, contrary to his direct testimony, he (Dyer) discovered appellee’s perilous position when ap-pellee was more than 30 feet away from the crossing and in time for appellant, by the use of due care, to have avoided the collision. To determine the full import and meaning of Dyer’s testimony, it is necessary to consider it in context.
Dyer’s testimony, in connection with that stated above, was, in effect, that if the engineer had been able to and had stopped promptly in response to the signal, appellee might have avoided the collision “by swerving over toward his left to miss us,” or “possibly could have” passed safely in front of the train, or “maybe by stopping if his brakes had been good”. Dyer also testified: “Other people I have worked with could have acted more promptly than he (Baker) did. * * * Mr. Baker is not as capable of acting on a signal as fast as other men physically.” Dyer further testified that such inability on the part of Mr. Baker was on account of age.
Any negligence of appellant railway company based upon the fact that its employee Baker did not act on Dyer’s “wash out” signal with sufficient rapidity because of his age is not available in support of the issue on discovered peril. Such negligence, if any, was original negligence, *173in existence prior to appellant’s discovery of the perilous position of appellee. The doctrine of discovered peril involves only that negligence arising after knowledge of the danger is acquired. 30-B Tex.Jur. 323; Terry v. English, 130 Tex. 632, 112 S.W.2d 446; Cannady v. Dallas Railway & Terminal Company, Tex.Civ.App., 219 S.W.2d 816.
Conceding appellee’s contention that the above testimony by Dyer constitutes probative evidence tending to show that he discovered appellee’s perilous position when appellee was more than 30 feet away from the point of collision, we still cannot agree that such evidence raised a fact issue on the ■question of whether the railway company’s •employees discovered appellee’s perilous position in time to have avoided the collision. Appellee’s contention is, in effect, that if his perilous position was discovered by Dyer when the front of the engine was at the center of the highway, “just barely approaching the inside westbound lane”, .and that the front of the engine at the time •of the collision was from 13 to 17 or more feet past the center line of the highway •(which latter fact we consider to be conclusively shown) then with the engine traveling at not more than 4.38 feet per second the employees of appellant had about four •seconds in which to avoid the collision and if the train was traveling at only 2.92 feet per second, such employees had more than ■six seconds to avoid the collision and that ■in either event there was ample time for them to have, by the use of due care, .avoided the collision. We cannot agree with this contention.
Appellant’s employees did not have all of the time after discovery of appellee’s peril to avoid the collision. They had only that time between Dyer’s discovery of the peril and the time when the train passed in front ■of and in the pathway of appellee’s approaching car. This is true because the undisputed and unexplained testimony of ap-pellee himself was to the effect that he did not see the train until he was within 30 feet of it; that he was in the center westbound lane and that he immediately applied his brakes but it was too late for him to stop. He did fail to stop and did run into and collide with the train.
 Under this evidence the only way that appellant’s employees could have avoided the collision would have been to stop the train before it passed in front of and into the pathway of appellee’s car. The burden was on appellee to establish this fact. The evidence does not show the exact path of appellee’s car in the center westbound lane as it approached the point of the collision. Under the evidence it could have been within a foot or two of the center of the highway as appellee was preparing to make a left turn. Since the burden was on appel-lee we cannot assume that it was not. If the front of the train was at the center of the highway when Dyer discovered appel-lee’s peril it was only one or two feet away in distance and a fraction of a second in time, from the pathway of appellee’s approaching car. It was only about eight feet in distance and approximately two or three seconds in time from being completely across the pathway of the approaching car. To stop the train after Dyer discovered Meek’s peril from such position, the following time consuming things were necessary :
(1) Dyer’s reaction time after discovery of the peril;
(2) Dyer’s signal to Baker;
(3) Baker’s reaction time to the signal before applying the brakes; and
(4) The braking time required to stop the train.
•Appellee Meeks did not discharge his burden of showing that appellant could, under the circumstances, by the use of due care, have stopped the train in time to have avoided the collision. He established that he did not see the train until it was too late • for him to stop. Even though he made full application of his brakes when he saw the *174tram, he was not able to stop but ran into and collided with the train. Appellant was entitled to time after discovery of the peril for its employees to react to the realization of the danger and to act upon that realization. They did not have that time. As a matter of law the time was too short after Dyer’s discovery of appellee’s peril for the railway company’s employees to stop the train before it passed in front of ap-pellee’s car. Any finding to the contrary would be pure conjecture. Dyer’s statement, in effect, that if the engineer had been able to and had responded to the signal as fast as other engineers, appellee “possibly could have” passed in front of the train, is on its face a conjecture or guess. If, however, the statement should be considered as an opinion of an expert or nonexpert witness, it is still not evidence of probative force in support of the finding of discovered peril. The -value of a conclusion or of opinion evidence is no stronger than the facts upon which it is-based. 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 569, pp. 395, 396; Insurance Company of North America v. Creech Drug Store, 264 Ky. 364, 94 S.W.2d 654; Pritchard v. Henry, Tex.Civ.App., 200 S.W.2d 651 (Ref. N.R.E.). The facts in this case do not support an opinion, conclusion or finding that appellant’s employees discovered appellee’s peril in time to have avoided the collision. No basis for recovery was established.
Appellee particularly urges a consideration of the case of Ford v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 151 Tex. 538, 252 S.W.2d 561. The facts of that case are clearly distinguishable from those of the instant case. In the Ford case discovery of peril occurred when the train was about 100 feet from the crossing. The train continued at the same rate of speed (about 15 miles per hour) to the crossing where it struck the automobile. The evidence showed that the train, traveling at that speed, could have been stopped in less than 300 feet. A slight reduction in the rate of speed by the train would have permitted the car to cross the track without a collision. There was evidence tending to show that the brakes on the train were not applied,' that there was time for application of brakes and some reduction in speed, and consequently evidence of probative force showing discovery of peril in ample time for the employees of the railway company to have avoided the collision. The facts of the instant case are entirely different. They are comparable to those in Martin v. Texas & N. O. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W.2d 567 (Writ Ref.). In that case it was held that the evidence did not raise the issue of discovered peril and a writ of error was refused by our Supreme Court. The facts of the Martin case are so similar to those of the instant case that the holding therein-is, in our opinion, controlling. See also Waldeck v. Watts, Tex.Civ.App., 326 S.W.2d 913 (Ref.N.R.E.); Schuhmacher v. Posey, 147 Tex. 392, 215 S.W.2d 880; Hall v. National Supply Co., 5 Cir., 270 F.2d 379.
Appellee’s motion for rehearing is overruled.