Court Opinion

ID: 9725033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:26:03.936818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:09.243354
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
Landis, J.
The majority opinion states that:
“It is conclusively shown by undisputed evidence that plaintiff-appellee violated the duty prescribed by [Burns’] §47-2114, ... by proceeding onto the crossing when appellant’s train was ‘plainly visible’ and in ‘hazardous proximity to the crossing’ and before he could ‘do so safely.’ ”
In support of this statement the opinion cites plaintiff’s-appellee’s testimony on cross-examination that after he turned south on Liverpool road he did not look to the west because he could not see west down the tracks but could only see across them because the dump body of his truck obstructed the view.
However, the majority opinion omits any reference to plaintiff’s-appellee’s testimony on direct examination, which was as follows:
“Q. Did you look after you started to make your turn [south on Liverpool Street] ? Did you look to your left down the track? A. After I made *464the turn I was concentrating on getting across the track then.
“Q. After you made your second stop? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you look down the track east? A. Yes.
“Q. Did you look to the right or to the west? A. Yes, I did.
“Q. Did you see anything? A. No, sir.”
The conflicting nature of this evidence is further discussed in the Appellate Court’s opinion in 163 N. E. 2d, beginning at page 136.
While the plaintiff’s-appellee’s evidence was obviously weak, it is not the province of this Court on appeal to weigh conflicting evidence or to pick out therefrom such testimony as may show plaintiff’sappellee’s contributory negligence as a matter of law. The law is well settled that it is only in cases where the evidence is without conflict and but a single inference can be drawn therefrom that the reviewing court can say as a matter of law that a course of conduct shown constitutes contributory negligence. 2 I. L. E., Appeals, §574.
As stated by Judge Gilkison in this Court’s opinion in N. Y. Central Ry. Co. v. Milhiser (1952), 231 Ind. 180, 199, 106 N. E. 2d 453, 462, 108 N. E. 2d 57, quoting from Heiny, Admx. v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (1943), 221 Ind. 367, 374, 47 N. E. 2d 145, 147:
“ ‘Under our law the burden is upon the defendant to establish the contributory negligence of the plaintiff, .... Such burden is no different in character than that which rests upon a plaintiff to establish negligence on the part of the defendant.’ ”
I concur with the opinion of the Appellate Court that the evidence in this case was sufficient to take the case to the jury.
*465I would affirm the judgment.
Note. — Reported in 179 N. E. 2d 571.