Court Opinion

ID: 8753786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 11:37:29.528514+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:01:07.218357
License: Public Domain

GIRBERT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). The evidence, to my mind, clearly shows that the plaintiff in error had knowledge of the fact that blasting was, going on before he went upon the boat. If so, he had knowledge of the fact concerning which it is charged in the complaint that the defendants in error failed to give notice. It must be borne in mind that the allegation of negligence concerning the failure to give notice was, not that the defendants in error failed to notify the plaintiff in error of the danger involved in the blasting, but merely failed to give notice of the fact that they were about to do the blasting. The allegation is that the defendants in error “negligently and carelessly omitted to give notice or warning to plaintiff and others that they were about to do said blasting.” The plaintiff in error, on the first trial of the cause, testified as follows: “There was about twenty-*565five or thirty passengers going up the stream, and I was going down, and the time of the hubbub of the people getting off the boat there was blasting at that time, so I understood. ' I heard some noise, and went in and sat down there, and the people went up the river.” On the last trial of the cause he testified that after he had gone on board the boat, and had been there some 15 minutes, he heard some noise that sounded like blasting at a distance; but he admitted that his memory at that time was not very clear, and admitted also that he gave on the first trial the testimony above quoted. If he heard the noise of blasting, and understood. that blasting was going on when he went on board the boat, he had all the knowledge of the fact that blasting was going on that could have been conveyed to him by any form of warning that the defendants in error might have adopted. Indeed, the sound of the blasting itself was the best form of notice that could be given. I think the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.