Court Opinion

ID: 9545033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:04:53.953882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:54.892977
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION OP
WIRTZ, J„ WITH WHOM TSUKIYAMA, C.J., JOINS.
Were I able to find some basis to submit the issue of liability to the jury I would wholeheartedly agree with the second portion of the opinion of the majority in dealing with the instruction to be given the jury for their consideration of the question of the contributory negligence of a six-year old child.
To warrant submission of the issue of liability to the *292jury, however, there must be some substantial evidence amounting to more than a mere scintilla showing negligence. Holstein v. Benedict, 22 Haw. 441; Bishop & Co. v. Hawaii Soap Co., 28 Haw. 180; Waterhouse Trust Co. v. Rawlins, 33 Haw. 876. Also, “* * * where there is no conflict from the evidence and but one inference can be drawn from the facts, it is the duty of the court to pass upon the question of negligence and proximate cause as questions of law.” Carreira v. Territory, 40 Haw. 513, 517.
“Actionable negligence” has been defined in Ward v. Inter-Island Steam Nav. Co., 22 Haw. 66, 69, as “the failure to do what a reasonable and prudent person would ordinarily have done under the circumstances of the situation, or doing what such person would not have done.” As pointed out in Carreira v. Territory, supra, 40 Haw. 513, 518-519, to establish liability for negligence “* * * it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show three things: First, a breach of duty which defendant owed to him; second, a negligent breach of that duty; and, third, injuries received thereby resulting proximately from that breach of duty.”
The evidence presented by plaintiffs merely establishes that an accident occurred when the minor plaintiff attempted to leave the station wagon. The fact that the child fell and cut himself is not evidence of negligence on the part of defendant. A carrier for hire is not an insurer of the safety of its passengers.1 Merritt v. Interstate Transit Lines, 171 F.2d 605 (8th Cir. 1948); see Annot., 9 A.L.R.2d 938.
*293Considering tlie events in a light most favorable to plaintiffs they simply show that the minor plaintiff and his cousin took two jars into defendant’s station wagon and that he fell, while carrying the jars, one in each hand, in getting out of the car. There was no evidence to show that defendant knew the jars were in the car or should have foreseen any risk of harm to the minor plaintiff. Although a carrier has the highest duty of care,2 the only dangers which a carrier must protect its passengers against are those which are reasonably foreseeable. Fuller v. Honolulu Rapid Transit & Land Co., 16 Haw. 1; Merritt v. Interstate Transit Lines, supra. Certainly, the fact that the child tripped on a rubber floor mat on the floor of defendant’s station wagon was not, in and of itself, evidence of negligence. The record fails to show that the mat was improperly laid or maintained. Finlayson v. Bryan, 56 N.D. 407, 217 N.W. 662; cf., D.C. Transit System, Inc. v. Smith, 173 A.2d 216 (Munic. Ct. of App. D.C. 1961); Robinson v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 26 Ill. App. 2d 139, 167 N.E.2d 793.
The minor plaintiff had ridden in defendant’s car from May of the previous year and had never experienced any difficulty in getting in and out of the car, even while carrying things. None of the other children needed assistance and it would be unreasonable to require defendant to help children get in and out of the station wagon any more than a school bus driver should assist normal school chil*294dren on and off a bus. The care owed by a carrier to its passengers must be consistent with the practical operation of its business. Hathaway v. Checker Taxi Co., 321 Mass. 406, 73 N.E.2d 603; Werlein v. Milwaukee Electric Ry., 267 Wis. 392, 66 N.W.2d 185. So it cannot be said that defendant was negligent in failing to help the minor plaintiff out of her station wagon when she had no knowledge of or reason to believe that there was any risk of harm to him. Schickel v. Yellow Cab Co., 369 Pa. 356, 85 A.2d 138; Finlayson v. Bryan, supra. In Somerset v. Stinson, 141 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio App. 1955), it was stated that, as a matter of law, there was no duty on the part of a cab driver to assist a normal 78-year old woman in leaving a taxi. It should be obvious that a normal six-year old boy can more easily and readily get out of a car or a bus than a normal 78-year old woman, as elderly people are notoriously more likely to fall than youngsters. See Annot., 56 A.L.R.2d 1257.
In my struggle with the evidence in this case I have been unable to discern any breach of the duty of care owed to the minor plaintiff by the defendant which caused the injury to the child. While it may be that such breach of duty is lurking somewhere in the background, as intimated by the opinion of the majority, although not apparent to me, still it is axiomatic3 that it was incumbent on the plaintiffs to show by a preponderance of the evidence in what manner defendant had breached her duty of care to tho minor plaintiff.4 See Southwestern Greyhound Lines, *295Inc. v. Smith, 277 P.2d 157 (Okla. 1954); Southeastern Greyhound Lines, Inc. y. Chumley, 312 Ky. 154, 226 S.W.2d 777; Crist v. Washington, Virginia & Maryland Coach Co., 196 Va. 642, 85 S.E.2d 213. That plaintiffs failed to sustain the burden of establishing negligence by substantial evidence, amounting to more than a mere scintilla, is reflected in the opinion of the majority.
The fact there was an accident, resulting in injury to the minor plaintiff, however regrettable, should not give rise to liability without fault.
I would reverse, in that the trial court erred in failing to direct a verdict in favor of the defendant and in refusing to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and remand the case for entry of judgment for defendant.

 The trial court so instructed the jury in Defendant’s Instruction No. 16, as modified and given over objection of plaintiffs:
“Although Mrs. Kumalaa was a carrier for hire and required to exercise a high degree of care consistent with the practical operation of her vehicle, she was not an insurer of Robert Grace’s safety. In other words, Mrs. Kumalaa was not required to protect Robert Grace against dangers which could not reasonably have been foreseen.”

 The case was submitted on this theory. The law of the case was settled by Defendant’s Instruction No. 16, given as modified over objection of plaintiffs, set forth in footnote 1, and Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. 2, given as modified over objection of both parties:
“Xou are instructed that the operator of a carrier for hire such as the defendant in this case, owes the highest degree of care to passengers, rather than the usual standard of ordinary care which applies to non-carriers. This duty of exercising the highest degree of care applies to passengers alighting from the vehicle after it has stopped.” Neither instruction is subject to review under this appeal.

 Except, of course, in cases where the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is applicable. However, it is to be noted that the growing tendency of submitting all accident cases to the jury for consideration regardless of the quantum and quality of the proof of negligence tends to nullify the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, as all accidents thus become clothed with an aura of negligence or liability.

 The trial court instructed the jury in Plaintiffs’ Instruction No. H, given by agreement:
“In order to establish the essential elements of the plaintiffs’ claim *295for general and special damages, the burden is upon plaintiffs to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following facts: First, that the defendant was negligent in one or more of the particulars aUeged; * * That this instruction was meaningless and of no assistance to the jury can be seen from the fact that the only allegation of negligence set forth in the complaint gives no particulars:
“* * *; that on February 7, 1961 while plaintiff was riding as a paying passenger in defendant’s automobile defendant negligently allowed plaintiff to fall from said automobile with a bottle in his hand