Court Opinion

ID: 9778874
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:24:30.29564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:15.138348
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing or for Transfer to Court en Banc
PER GURI Aid.
Appellant DeKalb Agricultural Association, Inc., in the motion for rehearing or transfer to the court en banc, vigorously asserts • that' in1 "our opinion we- misinteri preted a (question of fact and misapplied the rescue doctrine to the facts' ini the case.
Appellant complains of our ■ statement in the opinion to the effect that “It is not even contended that defendant * *' * - was not negligent.” Appellant calls our'attention to the, fact that, in the trial of the' case, the question of Haven’s being negligent was contested and instructions were submitted on that issue. In this, appellant is correct. ’However) the statement in- our opinion was intended to apply to the issues presented for ’ review -on the appeal..' As the statement of facts-'discloses, there'was substantial evidence to prove Haven was guilty of negligence. 'A jury found-'that he Was. The question was not briefed on appeal, therefore, for the purpose of the review on appeal, the'question of Haven’s negligence was a closed book. We should have been more specific and have stated that 'appellant on this' appeal did not question the fact that Haveh'was negligent.
Appellant, however, says that plaintiff, being a volunteer when he undertook to warn .travelers .on the’highway of the danger caused by the fallen tree, cannot recover for his injuries .unless Haven who inflicted the injuries was guilty of wanton and willful misconduct. Appellant complains because we did not refer to a *820number of cases cited ’in the reply brief in support of'this point. We are in total disagreement with appellant’s theory that to hold Haven liable plaintiff was required to show that Haven was guilty of wanton and willful misconduct. ‘
Haven, at the time his car struck plaintiff, was required to exercise the highest degree of care. The fact that plaintiff was voluntarily attempting to warn travelers of the danger on the highway did not in any way reducé the degree of care required to be exercised by operators of motor cars on the highway. If, therefore, Haven was guilty of negligence which caused plaintiff to be injured, Haven was liable for the damage unless plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The rescue doctrine, if material to any issue in the case, was only so in determining whether plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. That issue was submitted to a jury and the question was decided in plaintiff’s favor.
Now we make brief reference to the cases cited in the reply brief which were not mentioned in the opinion. In Cooper v. Teter, 123 W.Va. 372, 15 S.E.2d 152, the defendant had placed a wrecker-truck ,on a highway to retrieye a car which had gone off the road. Plaintiff's .decedent .voluntarily undertook to direct .traffic. A skidding motor car struck and killed him. The owner of the truck p.nd not the driver of the car which killed the director of traffic was sued. It was held that there was no causal connection between the alleged negligence of the defendant in obstructing the highway and the traffic director’s death. That case has no bearing on the case before us for review. If the driver of the skidding car had been sued,, it would have presented a different question of law.
The other three -cases cited involved questions of law which may be illustrated by referring to one of the three cases. In Richardson v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 1 Cir., 175 F. 897, defendant-company’s employees were lowering heavy tubing by means of ropes through a doorway. Plaintiff Richardson, who was not an employee but a stranger to the work, without-invitation undertook to assist and was injured, It was held he could not recover unless he made a showing of gross negligence. It is obvious that that class of cases is not in point on any question of law presented by the facts in the case under review. :
There is no merit in the motion and it is hereby overruled. . ■