Court Opinion

ID: 8861640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 17:50:21.120593+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:05:50.569856
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I cannot concur with my brethren in the decision oí this case. I do not draw from the testimony the same conclusions that they announce. I think there wag a substantial conflict in the testimony as to the rate of speed of the incoming train, and as to the distance to the point at which the train came into plain view, and that these matters are not so well established by the proof as requires or permits the court to And as matter of law that the testimony of the defendant in error to the effect that he did look, and did not see the train, “is not and cannot be true.” And. in my judgment, the state of the proof in the case requires that it should be submitted to the jury. I say nothing about the manner in which it was submitted to the jury, because this court, as I understand it, reverses (lie case on the ground that it should have been withdrawn from ilie jury, holding that the proof conclusively shows that want of care upon the part of the defendant in error, which would bar him from recovery, without regard to the negligence of the plaintiff in error. My understanding of the proof is that it shows that the defendant in error had placed his baggage on the outgoing train, upon which he intended to take passage, and, as that train was stopped for dinner, he stepped across the way, i.o some business house, while his train was waiting, and he was returning to his train at the time he received the injury. I do not understand the force of the suggestion that he liad not been to the depot, nor purchased a ticket, nor notified any of the officers or agents of the defendant company that he was even a prospective passenger. lie liad a ticket. Therefore he did not need to purchase another. He put his baggage upon the train. I cannot see what occasion he had to go to the depot, unless it is intended to hold that a. man cannot be a passenger on a road until he notifies some officer or agent of the carrier that he is a passenger, which I presume the court does not intend to hold. My view being that the defendant in error was a passenger within the meaning of the law applicable to the diligence that devolves upon such carriers, and that there was such a conflict in the testimony with reference to the speed of the train, and the distance at which it could have been seen, it was proper to submit the issues to the jury, and let them weigh the testimony, and pass on the questions of negligence.