Court Opinion

ID: 9456988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 20:08:55.654839+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:35:10.515346
License: Public Domain

HAYNSWORTH, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
I join in the conclusion of my brothers, though not without some difficulty.
My difficulties stem principally from the fact that most of the obstructions to the north, detailed in Judge Bryan’s opinion, were effective obstructions of Hunter’s view only when he stopped at a street intersection before he reached the railroad crossing. By the time he reached a position near the crossing, from which he should have been on the lookout for trains, the warehouse 339 feet north of the crossing, the depot, the other warehouse beyond it, and the piles of land plaster were no longer obstructions in the way of his view.
According to some testimony introduced on the part of the plaintiff, however, though sharply contradicted by the defendant, there were some box cars on the “passing” track * north of the crossing. If the box cars were there, and the jury’s verdict requires us to consider the case as if they were, Hunter’s view to the north would have been obstructed by the box ears after he had closely approached the passing track and until his cab cleared an extension of the edge of the parked cars.
My difficulty is compounded by the fact that, according to Hunter’s own testimony, once he cleared the warehouse on his right, there was nothing to obstruct his view to the south. Nevertheless, he proceeded on to the crossing looking fixedly to the south and never again glancing northward. If the box cars were on the passing track north of the crossing, thus partially obstructing his view, one would think that a prudent man would concentrate his attention to the north where the obstruction was, rather than on the south where there was no obstruction.
Still, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as we must, including the presence of the parked box cars, there was such a short space in time and in distance in which Hunter could have observed the train approaching at almost eighty miles an hour, before he began to cross the southbound tracks, that I cannot say his failure to effectively avail himself of that fleeting opportunity was negligence as a matter of law.
For these reasons, therefore, I agree with my brothers that the case was properly submitted to the jury.

 The track is variously referred to as a passing track or a house track. Photographs taken shortly after the collision show it to have been overgrown with weeds and having none of the appearance of a passing track for regular use in passing.