Court Opinion

ID: 9810742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:57:13.633348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:10.752311
License: Public Domain

Hoke, J.,
dissenting: I differ from the court in its decision of this case, and while no question of law is seriously involved, the difference as to its application to the facts before us, is sufficiently pronounced to justify some statement of the' reasons for my dissent.
It is accepted law in actions of this character that when two men of fair minds can come to different conclusions on the question of actionable negligence, the jury must determine the issue; and that this applies not only to the negligent act, but to the question of proximate cause.
It is also the better doctrine that where the negligent act has been established or admitted, it is only in clear and exceptional instances that the question of proximate cause should be withdrawn from the jury and determined by the judge.
Shearman & Red., Neg., vol. 1, sec. 52; Thompson’s Oom. on Law of Neg., vol. 1, sec. 161.
Another position may be considered as established; that when a judge withdraws a case from the jury by directing a nonsuit, the evidence favoring the plaintiff must be taken as true. Hopkins v. Railroad, 131 N. C., 464; Biles v. Railroad, at this term.
The court does not seem to have been altogether advertent to this last principle; for, in the opinion, apparent consideration is given to evidence favoring the defendant in certain phases of the case where there was other evidence contradictory or qualifying which was more favorable to plaintiff.
*477This matter is not dwelt upon at much length, or in greater detail for the reason that in any aspect of the case, I am of opinion that the ruling of the judge below cannot be sustained.
Applying the above rules to the facts before us, as I understand them: Here was a man over 80 years of age, in a top-buggy, who had just driven over a crossing of defendant’s railroad, when a passenger train of defendant company passed the crossing, going "north. The railroad ran about north and south here. The plaintiff had just driven over, being something over the length of the horse and buggy, as he states it; was from 15 to 20 feet from crossing, as the wTitness Elliott states it; and as the train went by the crossing, the horse commenced backing the buggy towards the train.' The road sloped upward some towards the crossing, and as the train moved on, going the distance of several car lengths, the horse continued to back the buggy up the slope, till the train and the buggy collided. The right hind wheel of the buggy was crushed down; the old man thrown from his seat on to the fore wheel, falling under the shafts, between the horse’s heels and received severe injuries, from which he still suffers. During the time the horse was backing, the engineer was looking directly at him. A collision was evidently imminent for some one jumped from the train and caught the horse by the bridle in an effort to avoid the catastrophe, “but the train moved on.” The witness, Elliott, a merchant in Thomasville, who had no interest in the matter, so far as appears, and who had the entire occurrence in full view, at a distance of not more than 134 feet from the center of the crossing, testifies in part, as follows: “To the best of my recollection, about the time the engine passed the crossing, the horse began to back and kept on backing and backed into the train. I saw the engineer looking out of the window, and some one else stepped from the train. The engineer was .looking at Mr. Kearns and his horse. He apparently 'kinder’ *478slacked up the speed of the train; it seemed so. Then he kept looking back after the engine had passed, and just after he struck the train, he put on brakes and stopped the train. It was going at a very slow rate of speed. The engine, tender and several cars had passed before he struck it. I don’t know the manner in which the train was stopped. I know it stopped very quickly * * * The train was going along very slowly, not trying to make good time, and after it struck, it stopped very quickly * * * It seemed that he slowed up after he saw the horse start to backing; he Tinder’ shut off steam, apparently. The train stopped very quickly after he was hit. I saw Kearns. I do not know how badly he was hurt * * * I live on the south side of the track. That is the side the engineer was on. I could see him looking out of his window. He was going very slowly, looking at this man. He stopped very quickly. He went about 10 or 15 feet. He was apparently holding his train under control, looking at this situation ** * * The horse’s head was pointed south and when he commenced going back, he gave a cut and went back against the train; his head was in a westerly direction. The horse and buggy were going backward * * * It was just an incline; I do not know what degree; 10, 15 or 20 degrees. It was a gradual incline down to where the horse was.”
There are several 'points in the testimony of this witness which may be noted as a help to the true understanding of the matter. Thus, “I saw the engineer'looking out of the window, and some one else stepped from the train. * * * The engineer was looking at Kearns and his horse; he apparently slacked the speed of the train. It seemed so. Then he kept looking back, and just after he struck the train, he put on brakes and stopped the train * * * The train stopped very quickly after he was hit * * * He stopped very quickly; went about 10 or 15 feet. He was apparently holding the train under control, watching the situation.”
*479These facts make out a clear case of negligence. The engineer in the exercise of ordinary prudence, should have stopped the train when he saw that a collision was imminent; it is almost equally as clear that the movement of the train had something to do with the nature and extent of the injury.
The opinion substantially admits that there was negligence in not stopping the train outright, and sustains the ruling of the court below on the ground that there is no evidence that the motion of the train had anything to do with causing the injury; and that this is so clear there can be no two opinions about it among fair minded men.
A dissertation on -the momentum possessed by bodies of vast weight and tremendous power, though moving slowly, might be of service here, but I find it difficult to discuss this last position with that seriousness which is always becoming when making final deliverance on the rights of parties and which the great respect entertained for my brethren always prompts. To hold that the movement of the train, though negligent, had nothing to do with causing or contributing to the plaintiff’s hurt, to my mind involves the proposition that when a 400,000 pounds train in motion collides with a 300 pounds buggy and a 900 pounds horse also in motion, in which the wheel of the buggy is crushed down and the occupant thrown from his seat, causing him to fall beneath the horse’s heels, the motion of the train had nothing whatever to do with intensifying the shock or increasing the damage, and that this is so clear that there can be no two opinions about it.
The reasons given in support of the position are no more satisfying than the position itself. It is urged that the train was going “slowly, very slowly.” This is a comparative term and does not mean the same thing when speaking of trains as in slower methods of locomotion. Thus, the witness, Elliott, says at one place, “It was going along very slowly, not trying to make good time.” However this may be, it was *480going forward faster than the horse was backing, for it had gone three or four car lengths while the horse had backed from 15 to 40 feet. It is also suggested that there is not the “slightest evidence that the car steps caught in the wheel and dragged the buggy any distance, or that the wheel struck the steps, as urged in the complaint.” No, the evidence is silent on these points. No one seems to have noted just what part of the car came in contact with the buggy, nor which way the wheel was dragged. The first point was probably considered of no consequence, and any evidence on the second was more than likely effaced in the crush and wreck of the offending wheel.
It is also repeated, in aid of the defendant’s engineer, that after the collision the train was stopped very quickly, but I cannot see how that can help the defendant. The train had gone 10 or 15 feet beyond the point of contact, and stopping it quickly only tended to show that the engineer had his train under full control and could readily have stopped in time to avoid the injury if he had so desired. As to the plaintiff, the injury had been already done, and the train could have proceeded on its way north and not added one whit to the plaintiff’s grievance or his injury.
It might be suggested in support of plaintiff’s position as a matter of common observation, that under all the conditions described by this testimony, a buggy could have backed up that incline at the rate described, against a stationary object, and it would not have crushed a buggy wheel of ordinary strength one time out of ten, or even one hundred; the only other element present was the motion of the train, and the strong probability is that this motion either caused, or greatly intensified the injury.
It would seem almost to permit the application of the principle res ipsa loquitur and that neither evidence.nor further argument is required. I agree with my brethren that there *481cannot well be two opinions on the question, but the conclusion should be the other way.