Court Opinion

ID: 9826259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 15:41:42.258905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:58.853105
License: Public Domain

Justice Fraser:
I concur with Mr. Justice Cothran, but think the fourteenth and fifteenth exceptions should be sustained.
Ordinarily a plaintiff may state a number of specifications of negligence, and, if he succeeds in proving one of them he has made out his case. This is not the ordinary case. Here it is alleged that the cause of the injury was made up of four elements, to wit, excessive speed, • obstacles to a view of the approaching train, failure to give the statutory signals, and a defective crossing. The complaint alleges that the existence of the four produced the injury. He alleged that, if the signals had been given, or the view unobstructed, he would not have gone on the track; that but for the excessive speed and defective crossing he would have crossed in time to have prevented the injury; that, in the absence of either one of the four, there would have been no accident. It is manifest, therefore, that the plaintiff must prove the presence of each of the four or fail. The engineer was responsible for the speed of the train and giving of the signals, and the jury, in finding for the engineer, has eliminated two elements of the four.
*466The appellant complains that his Honor refused to charge that the four must be found before there could be a verdict against it. The confusion arises from the inconsistent defenses. A defendant has the right to plead inconsistent defenses, and it availed itself of its privilege fully. When the defendant attempted to remove the case to the Federal Court, it claimed that the complaint contained separable causes of action. On this it, of course, failed as only one; cause of action was alleged made up of four concurring specifications. On the trial of the cause it changed its position, as it had the right to do, and claimed that there was only one cause of action made up of the four elements, and asked the Judge to so charge.
It seems to me the appellant’s present construction of the complaint is correct, and it was error to refuse the requests, and there should be a new trial.
Messrs. Devore and Bowman, Circuit Judges, concur.