Court Opinion

ID: 8180144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 22:32:00.213613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:40:08.891223
License: Public Domain

Berry, Judge:
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in the result of the majority opinion in this case, but dissent to the holdings in the majority opinion that the waving by the defendant, Schoolcraft, to the plaintiff to pass in front of his stopped truck, which was owned by the defendant, Conlon Baking Company, consisted of a question of fact as to whether this act was within the scope of his employment to be considered by the jury; that the verdict was not excessive, although a new trial would be had and the evidence may be different in another trial; and, that *598there was no evidence introduced in the trial of this case which would take it out of the general rule with regard to contributory negligence on the part of the infant plaintiff.
The defendant, Schoolcraft, was employed by the defendant, Conlon Baking Company, to drive its truck and to sell its products at the time the infant plaintiff was struck by the defendant Holbert’s automobile. Schoolcraft was neither driving the truck nor selling any products at the time of the accident. He had stopped the truck on State Highway No. 119 near its intersection with State Highway No. 4 at Clendenin, approximately 300 feet from said intersection. After Schoolcraft motioned to the plaintiff to proceed in front of his truck, it is stated in the majority opinion that she waited about ten or fifteen seconds, then crossed in front of the truck and into the other traffic lane where she was struck by Holbert’s automobile which was approaching from the opposite direction. The plaintiff was struck by the right front of Hol-bert’s automobile. Assuming Holbert’s automobile was at the intersection of Boutes 119 and 4 at the time Schoolcraft waved or signalled the plaintiff to pass in front of his truck, as indicated in the record, there would have been ample time for the plaintiff to have crossed the highway if she had proceeded to cross when Schoolcraft directed her to. However, she waited ten or fifteen seconds, then attempted to cross at a time when the Holbert vehicle had covered the 300 feet, and was struck by it.
The Circuit Court of Kanawha County, upon a writ of error granted by it, held that Schoolcraft was acting outside the scope of his employment when he waved or signalled the plaintiff to pass in front of his truck, and that the Conlon Baking Company was not liable for such action on the part of its employee School-craft. I would affirm the Circuit Court on this point.
There are few cases in this country dealing with similar circumstances such as are involved in the case *599at bar. In the recent case of Sweet, a minor, etc. v. Ringwelski, Crawford Door Sales Co., and Thompson, 362 Michigan 138, 106 N.W. (2d) 742, which involved a ten year old girl crossing a street after having been waved by a driver of a truck to do so, the question of negligence on the part of the truck driver and his employer was submitted to the jury for determination, but apparently the question of scope of employment on the part of the truck driver was not raised.
In the case of Harris v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 132 Kan. 715, 297 P. 718, where a streetcar motorman waved or signalled to an adult plaintiff to walk in front of his streetcar and she was struck by a vehicle coming from the opposite direction, it was clearly indicated that the act on the part of the motorman in directing the plaintiff to pass in front of his streetcar was outside the scope of his employment. It was held that the employer, the streetcar company, could not have conferred such authority and responsibility on its motorman employee, that it would have been a usurpation of the police powers of the municipality for the defendant streetcar company to have authorized its motorman to undertake the duty of directing pedestrial traffic. It was held in the case of Devine, et al. v. Cook and W. S. Hatch Co., Inc., 3 Utah (2d) 134, 279 P. (2d) 1073, involving two adult motorists, that the one signalled has as good, if not better, opportunity to have observed the approach of the third vehicle than the one giving the signal, and therefore there was no liability incurred on the part of the defendant by his signalling.
The weight of authority in this country is to the effect that there is ordinarily no liability on the part of an employer incurred in his driver’s giving assistance to others. See 51 A.L.R. (2d) page 42 § 9. In cases in the minority where an employer was held liable, usually to third parties, most of the liability resulted from the manner in which the driver parked the vehicle or maneuvered it, acts not performed by Schoolcraft.
*600Under the facts of the case at bar, I am of the opinion that the Conlon Baking Company would not be liable under any circumstances, because the act of the defendant, Schoolcraft, in waving to the plaintiff to pass in front of his truck was outside the scope of his employment. It was tantamount to directing traffic, and he was not employed by the Conlon Baking-Company for any such purpose. It is only a matter of degree as to whether he was directing traffic, while standing in a parked truck, or whether he was standing in the middle of the highway, and certainly under no stretch of the imagination could the Conlon Baking Company be held liable for any actions on the part of Schoolcraft had he been standing in the middle of the highway directing traffic or waving pedestrians across the highway.
Then, too, notwithstanding the statements contained in the majority opinion that the plaintiff was thirteen years of age, .she was nearly fourteen. The accident occurred in April, 1957, and she was fourteen in July, 1957. She was in the eighth grade at school, made high grades, was an intelligent girl, and had considerable experience walking along and crossing the highways in and around Clendenin. She was familiar with the highway and the flow of traffic at the scene of the accident. She waited ten or fifteen seconds after Schoolcraft waved or signalled her to cross the highway and did not look to ascertain whether or not a vehicle was approaching from the opposite direction. She was asked the question that if she had looked could she have seen the automobile which was driven by the defendant Holbert, and her reply was, “Yes, sir”. Although she stated that she did not look to see if a car was approaching, the trial court sustained an objection to the question and answer referred to above, and the jury was not allowed to consider it. Inasmuch as the plaintiff in this case was almost fourteen years of age, had better than average intelligence and training than a fourteen year old girl, she could not have been placed in the same category *601as the ten year old infant involved in the Sweet case, but, should be treated as the adult involved in the case of Devine v. Cook et al., supra, which was distinguished by the Michigan Court in the Sweet case. .
The question of intelligence and the care and caution the plaintiff should have exercised, considering all the facts relative to her age, experience, etc. in the trial of this case, should be considered in connection with the question of contributory negligence. Jones v. Ambrose, 128 W. Va. 715, 38 S. E. 2d 263. It was held in the case of Schoonover v. Railroad Co., 69 W. Va. 560, 73 S. E. 266, that an infant eleven years of age who attempted to cross a railway crossing without looking to ascertain whether or not a train was approaching was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. It was stated in that case that “Numerous decisions declare that in cases of injury occur-ing upon highways and railroads, failure of a child to exercise such care, caution and foresight as is ordinarily possessed and exercised by children of his age will bar recovery for an injury thereby occasioned.” The Court further stated in the Schoonover case, at page 568, the following: “We have no doubt the plaintiff knew the danger of going upon a railroad track without looking for trains. His home was in Clay county on the line of a railroad and he was in Huntington at the time of the injury, attending the spring term of school at Marshall College. His situation and engagement at the time indicate possession of the intelligence and discretion of boys of his age, thousands-of whom daily cross railroads, trolley lines and highways, exercising discretion and prudence requisite to their safety. Hence the trial court properly held him guilty of negligence as matter of law.”
I am therefore of the opinion that it was reversible error for the trial court to refuse defendant’s instruction number 11, wherein the jury would have been told that the plaintiff was capable of being guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law under the evidence in the case at bar, and that if they found *602from a preponderance of the evidence that she was negligent at the time of the accident and that such negligence proximately contributed to her injuries, she could not prevail.
Regardless of whether or not the verdict of $65,000.00 was excessive, I would express no opinion with regard to this matter at this time, because the evidence may be different in another trial of this case. Cook v. Railway Co., 97 W. Va. 420, 125 S. E. 106; Leftwich v. Wesco Corp., 146 W. Va. 196, 119 S. E. 2d 401.
For the reasons stated herein, I would affirm the Circuit Court of Kanawha County in holding that the Conlon Baking Company was not liable as a matter of law; that the presumption that the plaintiff could not be guilty of contributory negligence has been rebutted; and that no ruling as to whether or not the verdict was excessive should be made at this time.
I am authorized to say that Judge Given joins in this concurring and dissenting opinion.