Court Opinion

ID: 9636458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:29:41.77515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:46.216802
License: Public Domain

KALODNER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I agree with the view of the majority that there is basis for the jury’s finding that the P. T. C. was negligent and that accordingly the judgments for Mrs. Abigail Sterner, Mrs. Florence T. Smith, John M. Smith and Francis A. Smith should be affirmed. In my opinion, however, the testimony clearly establishes that Fenimore was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law under the Pennsylvania decisions and accordingly the judgments entered in his favor, individually and in the two claims arising out of his minor son’s death, should be set aside.
Since Fenimore was negligent, the P. T. C. as third-party plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against him for contribution toward the judgments obtained against it by the other plaintiffs above named. Feni-more’s own testimony and that of his witness clearly establish his contributory negligence.
Viewing that testimony in its most favorable light, as we are required to do, it establishes (1) the presence of trolley tracks adjacent to the left of the highway for almost half a mile before the crossing; (2) the overhead trolley wire crossed the highway at the point of the collision; (3) the highway turned to Fenimore’s left at the point where it crossed the tracks; (4) Fenimore passed to the left of the stopped truck and travelled approximately 45 feet beyond it before the collision took place; (5) Fenimore cleared the westbound tracks and the five foot dummy area between those tracks and the eastbound tracks, on which the trolley was proceeding, when the collision occurred; (6) the collision occurred after the trolley passed the center of the 24-foot highway on which Fenimore was travelling; (7) Fenimore first saw the trolley when “it was on top of me” (N.T. pages 83, 84) ; (8) his sighting of the trolley and the collision occurred simultaneously; (9) the trolley and Fenimore’s automobile crashed “head-on”.
Factors (1), (2) and (3) should have put Fenimore on notice of the existence of the trolley crossing.' By his action, described in (4), his testimony that he did not see the two trolley crossing warning signs becomes immaterial for in my opinion, Leaman Transportation Corp. v. P. T. C., 1948, 358 Pa. 625, 57 A.2d 889, clearly controls. In that case, which incidentally also involved the Industrial Highway, the plaintiff’s truck was struck by the trolley almost immediately after it entered onto the tracks; the truck was not halfway across the tracks when it was struck. The Penn*728sylvania Supreme Court 'held that the truck driver was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, stating, 358 Pa. at page 632, 57 A.2d at page 893:
“ * * * It follows, therefore, as a matter of law that the driver was guilty of negligence which contributed to the accident that caused the damage sued for by the plaintiff. This is plainly a case where the ‘person who has entered upon (the) railway track (was) struck so instantaneously as to rebut the presumption that he performed his duty to look and listen; no other inference being honestly possible from the evidence than that he failed to do so.’ See Ehrhart v. York R. Co., 308 Pa. 566, 570, 571, 162 A. 810, 811. On the other hand, if he did actually look, then it at once becomes undeniably apparent, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, that he chose to test an obvious danger and must therefore be held to have assumed the risk of his lack of proper care. See Moses v. Northwestern Pennsylvania R. Company, 258 Pa. 537, 540, 102 A. 166.”
It may be noted that the ruling of contributory negligence in the Leaman case was made despite the fact that the truck driver, having been killed, was presumed under the Pennsylvania law, to have exercised due care. In the case sub judice the vehicle driven by Fenimore was struck at the instant it reached the east-bound trolley tracks, making out a much stronger case for contributory' negligence than in the Leaman case.