Court Opinion

ID: 9857782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:00:42.52475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:45:55.959814
License: Public Domain

DIXON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from that portion of the opinion which finds the doctrine of last clear chance applicable.
In my opinion, gasoline is such an extremely dangerous substance that the highest degree of care should be exercised by all persons who are required to handle it. A proper disposition of this case would be to allow each party to bear his own loss.
The reason the - doctrine of last clear chance should not benefit the plant operator is that he should have foreseen the same things that the driver should have foreseen; he should have observed the tank overflowing. At no time was he prevented from making the observation, except for the voluntary absence of the plant employee.
The doctrine of last clear chance is designed, it is true, as a humanitarian doctrine; its object is to prevent wanton injury to persons who are found in a position of peril, and who cannot extricate themselves. The plant operator should not have been unaware of the danger involved; there was never any reason why he could not have “extricated” the plant from destruction by observing that which he could have seen.