Court Opinion

ID: 9448745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 23:44:14.160698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:32.703915
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
For some reason not shown on this record, the District of Columbia was not named a party1 to this action, despite the fact that the location and construction of loading platforms were within its competence and had been undertaken by it. Ordinarily, it may be assumed, the District should be liable for its failure safely to maintain its highways, whether or not a portion thereof be raised above the surrounding traveled surface. The loading platforms served pedestrians who sought to board streetcars.
In respect to the situation presented here, the legislative history discloses that until fiscal 1940 the District was prohibited from using highway funds to construct loading platforms. The hearings on H.R. 5610 before a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (1939), reflect the testimony of several witnesses who urged that Congress permit the District to charge against the highway fund the cost of the installation of permanent loading platforms. Various spokesmen made clear their opinion that it was not legally possible for the Public Utilities Commission to compel the streetcar company to install the platforms, and the Congress was urged to make it possible-that the cost be shared equitably between-“the streetcar-riding public and the automobile-riding public.”2 Mr. George E. Keneipp, speaking for the Keystone Automobile Club, argued that the law, as it then stood, unwisely placed what should be regarded as a public burden-on a private concern which had been unable to cope with the demand for platforms superior in utility, safety, and appearance to the previously constructed, unsightly, poorly illuminated wooden-platforms which had been responsible for many accidents.3 Congress resolved the problem by providing that the plans and locations of permanent loading installations be approved by the Public Utilities Commission and the Director of Vehicles and Traffic, with the proviso that, after construction of the platforms, the street railway company be required to “maintain, mark and light the same at its expense.” 4
It seems clear that the division of responsibility between the District and the-street railway company was meaningful,, as the loading platforms served a bifurcated public need. But it does not appear who was to decide what particular platforms should be lighted, or in just what way they were to be marked, or to what extent maintenance devolved upon: *783the street railway company. That the streetcar company owed some duty in such respects and to some extent would seem to be beyond question in light of the statute. Whether performance of that duty was to be deemed a safety measure for the benefit of the railway company passengers waiting to board a public conveyance or whether it ran also to vehicular traffic seems not to have been the subject of congressional inquiry. It would appear that, depending upon the location of a particular loading platform with respect to lighting conditions, volume of traffic and similar considerations, a question of fact may arise when the street railway company is charged with failure to perform such duty as might devolve upon it by virtue of circumstances in a particular situation.
It follows, in my view, the case should not have been dismissed upon the appellants’ opening statement. I therefore join my colleagues in reversing.

. Cf. Adams v. Kansas City, 266 S.W.2d 771, 773 (Mo.App.1954).

. It is clear that the relief of traffic congestion was a factor in the thinking of those concerned with the problem in view of the requirement that automobiles come to a stop behind standing streetcars. Safety of transit riders would seem to have been no loss important. Hearings on H.R. 5610 Before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. 469-74, 752-53. (1939).

. Hearings, supra note 2, at 757-58.

. District of Columbia Appropriations Act,. 1942, 55 Stat. 528. The Appropriations Act of 1940, unlike that of 1942, provided' in pertinent part that the street railway-company “shall pay the cost of maintenance, marking, and lighting after construction.” 53 Stat. 1033 (1939).