Court Opinion

ID: 9447108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:25:44.91236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:54.061127
License: Public Domain

BASTIAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
While I agree with the conclusion that the action of the trial court in setting aside the jury’s verdict in the second trial of this case should not be disturbed, I dissent from the conclusion of the majority that the judgment for defendant (appellee) in the third trial should be reversed and the case remanded. Briefly stated, my reasons for disagreeing with the majority are as follows:
1. There was no error, in my opinion, in failing “to instruct the jury that they should find for the plaintiffs if on the evidence as a whole there was negligence on the part of the Railroad, which was the proximate cause of the collision, in the failure of the Railroad to bring the train to a stop when the peril of Miller was or should have been seen.” The fact is that, because of the curve of the tracks, the time when the vehicle could have been seen and the time when it should have been seen were exactly the same, and the brakes were applied as soon as it was possible to ascertain that the vehicle was stalled. There was evi*547dence of this, and no evidence to the contrary. The fact is that the words “should have been seen” are entirely superfluous, and might well be confusing.
2. I do not believe the trial court erred in not permitting the issue of negligence on the part of the fireman to be decided by the jury, this for the reason that there was shown no negligence whatsoever on his part. He performed the several duties of his job properly.
3. There was no error, in my opinion, in the instructions given to the jury.
(a) It seems clear that, when an en-gineman discovers a person or vehicle on the track and blows a warning whistle, he is not bound to slow up the train or stop it until he is able to ascertain that the person is unable to extricate himself or his vehicle. See 44 Am.Jur., Railroads, § 470.
(b) The only testimony relating to the speed of the train was that it was proceeding at 80 miles per hour, which was the railroad speed limit in the area. The court told the jury:
“The train was proceeding at eighty miles an hour, which was the established and proper speed in that area.”
In addition, the speed of the train up to the point where the engineman saw the stalled vehicle does not seem to have been an issue in the case. I think it may be fairly said that there was evidence that the brakes were properly applied when the engineman was able to ascertain that plaintiff (appellant) was unable to move the vehicle from the tracks.
(c) It certainly seems to me that the jury had the right to consider whether there is any duty on the part of an en-gineman to slow down a train on each occasion that he may see a vehicle apparently crossing an intersection some distance away and before he realizes it is stationary.
(d) Also, it seems to me that the jury had the right to consider what effect such a duty, even if there were one, would have on the operation of railroad trains. For instance, in Ohrmann v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 1947, 223 Minn. 580, 27 N.W.2d 806, 811, the court stated that a “train cannot make the time expected and demanded by the public if it slows down whenever a vehicle is seen at or approaching a crossing. * * * [Not] until it becomes apparent to the engineer that a collision is imminent is he required to stop his train.” See also Steil Brewing Co. v. Washington, B. & A. R. R., 1913, 120 Md. 419, 87 A. 838.
I would affirm the judgment.