Court Opinion

ID: 9460112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:42:07.998948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:29.451808
License: Public Domain

GEE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
Concurring as I do in much of the majority’s lucid and closely-reasoned opinion, I must regretfully dissent from its holding that judgment should be rendered for Mr. Hurst and his co-plaintiff.
We hold here that there is no evidence of substance supporting a jury finding that in going through the wrong door and proceeding into darkness so intense that a light meter would not register in it, plaintiff Hurst failed to keep a proper lookout for his own safety. To me, the deliberate advance of a sighted man into an area where he cannot see may partake of keeping an improper lookout. With respect, I maintain the view that this is conduct which reasonable minds could find careless.
The jury also found, however, that “ . . . the manner in which Hurst proceeded . . . ” was not negligent. Since nothing about the manner *174of his proceeding could well have been thought negligent except picking the wrong door and advancing into darkness —where he could not see what dangers might lie — I do not see how the two special findings can be satisfactorily reconciled.1
There was no general verdict for either side. What the jury meant by its special findings is to me unclear. I agree that the judgment should be reversed but think the interests of justice would be better served by a retrial.

. Indeed, if forced to reconcile them I would be inclined to give the specific finding on lookout controlling effect over the more general one on the manner of Mr. Hurst’s “proceeding.” But this likely puts more pressure on the jury’s reasoning than it should be made to bear.