Court Opinion

ID: 6886250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:29:04.793308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:05:43.268225
License: Public Domain

HOLMES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot concur in the majority opinion in this case without consciously invading the province of the jury. This is true because I think there was substantial evidence to support the verdict and all the findings of fact implicit therein.
The issue as to contributory negligence depends upon direct and circumstantial evidence. The direct evidence consists of the testimony of two eye witnesses, one of whom said that Slade was driving not more than ten miles per hour, the other twenty miles, when he met his death.
Under the evidence, different inferences might be drawn by fair and reasonable men as to the density of this fog and as to whether it was negligent to move within it at a speed not exceeding ten miles per hour. The district court did not err in refusing to decide, as a matter of law, that Slade was negligent in proceeding into a thin fog that suddenly became dense after he had traveled a short distance.