Court Opinion

ID: 9537887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:26:28.383833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:08.446799
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. The husband of the plaintiff was found dead in his barnyard under the left rear wheel of his farm tractor. The motor was running, and the machine was in neutral gear. At the time the deceased was found, he had a pair of pliers in one hand and an iron bar in the other. He had intended to drive his tractor over to the home of a neighbor, where he was to pick up a grain drill. There were some of his tracks on the ground on the left-hand side of the tractor. The gear mechanism could not be manipulated by one standing on the ground on the left-hand side of the machine. The ground sloped downward ahead of the tractor.
If the deceased was killed by being run over by a land conveyance while a pedestrian, then the plaintiff would be entitled to an additional sum of $10,000 under a policy of insurance written by the defendant.
I cannot believe that the deceased was a pedestrian within the meaning of the terms of the policy. If he were a pedestrian, then so would every mechanic working in a private garage be one. A motorist who is killed while changing a flat tire beside the highway would likewise be a pedestrian. I just cannot believe that the policy was intended to cover such situations.
In the Motor Vehicle Code, which has to do with traffic, a pedestrian is defined as *411any person afoot. Section 41-6-6(d), U. C.A. 1953. The idea of travel is inherent in the definition. The New Twentieth Century Dictionary defines the word as "one who walks or journeys on foot.” Black’s Law Dictionary says it is “a person traveling on foot.”
The following cases seem to me to throw some light on the meaning of the word "pedestrian”:
In Stout v. Skinner, 283 Ill.App. 330, the deceased was pushing his automobile because it would not start. The court held that he was not a pedestrian.
In Carlsen v. Hardware Mut. Casualty Co., 255 Wis. 407, 39 N.W.2d 442 (1949), the.plaintiff was struck by a car when he left his automobile to thank another motorist for pulling him out of a ditch. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin held that the plaintiff was not a pedestrian.
In Gooschin v. Ladd, 177 Wash. 625, 33 P.2d 653 (1934), the plaintiff’s car was stuck in the mud to one side of the paved portion of the highway. Another motorist attempted to pull plaintiff’s car onto the highway but the towrope broke. While plaintiff was at the left front of his car and removing the broken towrope, the defendant drove his automobile into the plaintiff. It was held that the plaintiff was not a pedestrian.
.The plaintiff in the instant case had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the deceased was a pedestrian when he lost his life. This she did not do.
Therefore, I would reverse the judgment entered and remand the matter with directions to dismiss the complaint of the plaintiff.