Court Opinion

ID: 9443481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:21:52.17883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:30.063495
License: Public Domain

JOHNSEH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I do not feel able to say as a matter of law at what point of proximity to the dam there existed the danger generally to boatmen, on the basis of all the possible affecting conditions which could obtain on Lake Taneycomo, of being drawn into and over the spillway. And without the establishment and posting of such a general danger zone by appellant, as a legal constant, based on all the possible affecting conditions and taking into account all the possible kinds of boats used on the lake, I no more feel able to declare judicially under the conditions which obtained on the specific occasion and the knowledge of them which appellee could have only from observation, at what point, in relation to such conditions and knowledge, appellee could reasonably have been expected to realize that he would be subjecting himself to this danger.
Without an established and posted general danger zone as a legal constant, the point of actual danger was a variable one, as a matter both of fact and of apparency, in that some of the factors by which it was controlled, such as volume of water going over the spillway, extent of existing current, and manifestations of flow, were not at all times the same.
Appellee testified that, on his first approach toward the dam, he proceeded to' a point some 25 or 50 feet away and then turned his craft around to get his camera ready; that in making this approach there had been no feeling or suggestion of pull or tow upon the boat at any time; and that, while he knew, of course, that the river flowed generally into the lake and on beyond again, the lake itself had a placid appearance and was without any movement of twigs, driftwood or other debris indicative of a special current. There was evidence on the part of appellant that a movement of debris in the lake existed “under all conditions.” There further was testimony by appellant’s general superintendent that, under the specific conditions existing at the time of the accident, “a man in a rowboat who had never seen the place before — I believe the current of the water would move his boat to the *947extent that he would feel it.” He admitted, however, that, when an outboard motor was used, as appellee did, under the ¡conditions which existed on the occasion, “he might not be able to detect from the current as to how much water was going over, or the velocity.”
In so far, therefore, as the volume of water, the extent of current, and the manifestations of flow were material factors in relation to appellee’s responsibility of knowing from observation how close to' the dam he could prudently go, the facts as to the existing conditions and their observable significance were clearly, it seems to me, for the jury to resolve.
There also are other considerations shown by the evidence which I think tended to make the question of fixing the observational point of danger under the existing conditions one for the jury and not for the court. Thus, it appeared that appellant did not require its workmen to cross the lake in connection with their work at any certain point but allowed them to cross in varying proximity to the dam on the basis of the existing volume of water. But, while insisting that a boatman on the lake, inexperienced though he might be, should be sufficiently able to determine the volume of water at any time to know how close to the dam he could safely go, appellant apparently did not believe that this standard could be safely applied to its own experienced workmen, for, according to its plant superintendent, employees were not permitted to pick their point of crossing on the basis of observation, but “we have a river gauge which tells us the depth of the water over the spillway and we go upstream according to the depth of the water.”
Another circumstance seems to me further to point up the impossibility of saying with legal absoluteness that an approach to within 50 feet of the dam (which distance is entitled to be taken on appellee’s testimony in relation to a directed verdict) was necessarily at the time unsafe and should have been known by appellee to be so. Photographs taken on the lake on behalf of appellant for purposes of the trial, which appellee agreed were made under conditions corresponding to those existing at the time of the accident, were taken from a boat in 75-foot proximity to the dam. If, on the existing conditions, it was safe as a matter of fact and apparency to approach within this distance to take pictures, it seems to me that it would be drawing a fine legal line to say that nevertheless no boatman was at all warranted in proceeding to a 50-foot proximity for such a purpose — and this though the observational elements might present the same apparent condition.
As I have said, I do not think that, on the varying conditions of the lake, both of fact and of apparency, it can legally be declared how close to the dam a boatman was warranted in going at any particular time. It is entitled to be borne in mind in this connection that no general danger zone, with posted warnings, taking into account all the possible elements and conditions which could exist, had been established by appellant. In the absence of such a legal constant, -I do not believe that any possible basis exists, under the varying conditions which could obtain and the in-absolute possibilities of observational appreciation to which they might be subject, to hold that anyone who ran a motorboat to within a distance of 50 feet from the dam was necessarily guilty of contributory negligence.
If appellee’s conduct was imprudent, it seems to me that that brand can in the circumstances only be placed upon it by the branding iron of fact, and not by the branding iron of law. I am unable to see in the variableness of the conditions, both of fact and of apparency, such absoluteness of realizable danger of being drawn into and over the spillway, at a distance of 50 feet from the dam, as would require the question of contributory negligence to be taken from the jury.