A Selection of Cases on the Law of Torts

by Unknown

The court, among other instructions, charged in substance as follows:—

If you find that the motorman could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have seen the plaintiff and stopped the car, and that by reason of the failure to stop the car Hardy’s team was knocked down and injured, it would be such negligence on the part of the defendant as would entitle the plaintiff to recover, provided Hardy was free from contributory negligence on his part.

If Hardy was on this track driving south, and you find that he was negligent in being on it as he was, his failure to look or failure to watch to avoid injury, if he was negligent, would not prevent him from recovering in this suit, if the motorman, after discovering him in that position, could have, by the use of reasonable and ordinary care, avoided the injury by stopping the car. [This was a restatement in concrete form of an abstract proposition already stated in the charge.]

In the Common Pleas Court there was a verdict for plaintiff and judgment thereon. The Circuit Court reversed the judgment of the Common Pleas. Plaintiff brought error.[^[207]]

Davis, J. Under the issues in this case, evidence was introduced tending to prove that the plaintiff’s agent was guilty of negligence directly contributing to the injury to plaintiff’s property. If the driver of the plaintiff’s team, immediately upon entering Main Street, and without afterwards looking to the north, as he admits, drove southward upon the track until the car coming from the north overtook and collided with the buggy, he was negligent; because the street was open and unobstructed for from two hundred to two hundred and fifty feet from the point at which he entered upon it, and it was not necessary for him to go upon the street railway track, and because, the night being dark, he unnecessarily put himself in a place of obvious danger and continued therein until the moment of the accident, without looking out for an approaching car or doing anything whatever to avoid injury, apparently risking his life and the property of his principal upon the presumption that the defendant’s employees would make no mistakes nor be guilty of any negligence. If, on the other hand, he drove along the street until he came to the obstruction and then turned out upon the track to go around it without again looking, as his own testimony shows that he did not, and was then almost in the same instant struck by the car, he was negligent. Upon either hypothesis, assuming that the defendant was negligent in not keeping a proper lookout, or was otherwise not exercising ordinary care to prevent collision with persons lawfully on its track, the plaintiff could not recover, if it should appear in the case that the negligence of both is contemporaneous and continuing until after the moment of the accident, because, in such case the negligence of each is a direct cause of the injury without which it would not have occurred, rendering it impracticable in all such instances, if not impossible, to apportion the responsibility and the damages. Suppose, for example, that not only the buggy and horses had been injured, but the defendant’s car also, by what standard could the extent of liability of either party be determined? Timmons v. The Central Ohio Railroad Co., 6 Ohio St. 105; Village of Conneaut v. Naef, 54 Ohio St. 529, 531. In short, there can be no recovery in such a case unless the whole doctrine of contributory negligence, a doctrine founded in reason and justice, should be abolished.

Under these circumstances, therefore, it was not sufficient to say to the jury that if they should find that the motorman who had charge of the car which struck the team, could by the exercise of ordinary care have seen the team and could have stopped the car and that by reason of the failure to do so the team was injured, it would be such negligence by the defendant as would entitle the plaintiff to recover, provided that the plaintiff’s driver was “free from contributory negligence.” The defendant had the right to have the jury specifically instructed, as it requested, that if the jury should find from the evidence that both the plaintiff and the defendant, through their agents, were negligent, and that the negligence of both combined so as to directly cause the injury complained of, then the verdict should be for the defendant. The court refused to so instruct the jury, and the circuit court correctly held that the refusal to so charge was erroneous.

The error in refusing the defendant’s request to charge, was extended and made much more prejudicial when the court, after giving instructions as to contributory negligence by the plaintiff in very general terms, proceeded to impress upon the jury, by repetition and with some emphasis, the doctrine known as “the last chance.” This doctrine is logically irreconcilable with the doctrine of contributory negligence, and accordingly it has been vigorously criticised and warmly defended. Probably, as in many such controversies, the truth lies in middle ground; but it is certain that the rule is applicable only in exceptional cases, and the prevalent habit of incorporating it in almost every charge to the jury in negligence cases, in connection with, and often as a part of, instructions upon the subject of contributory negligence, is misleading and dangerous.

This confusion seems to arise either from misapprehension of the law or a want of definite thinking. The doctrine of the “last chance” has been clearly defined by a well-known text-writer as follows: “Although a person comes upon the track negligently, yet if the servants of the railway company, after they see his danger, can avoid injuring him, they are bound to do so. And, according to the better view with reference to injuries to travellers at highway crossings—as distinguished from injuries to trespassers and bare licensees upon railway tracks at places where they have no legal right to be—the servants of the railway company are bound to keep a vigilant lookout in front of advancing engines or trains, to the end of discovering persons exposed to danger on highway crossings; and the railway company will be liable for running over them if, by maintaining such a lookout and by using reasonable care and exertion to check or stop its train, it could avoid injury to them.” 2 Thompson, Negligence, sec. 1629. The italics are the author’s. Now, it must be apparent upon even a slight analysis of this rule that it can be applied only in cases where the negligence of the defendant is proximate and that of the plaintiff remote; for if the plaintiff and the defendant both be negligent and the negligence of both be concurrent and directly contributing to produce the accident, then the case is one of contributory negligence pure and simple. But if the plaintiff’s negligence merely put him in the place of danger and stopped there, not actively continuing until the moment of the accident, and the defendant either knew of his danger, or by the exercise of such diligence as the law imposes on him would have known it, then, if the plaintiff’s negligence did not concurrently combine with defendant’s negligence to produce the injury, the defendant’s negligence is the proximate cause of the injury and that of the plaintiff is a remote cause. This is all there is of the so-called doctrine of “the last clear chance.” A good illustration is found in the case of Railroad Co. v. Kassen, 49 Ohio St. 230. Kassen walked through the rear car of the train on which he was a passenger to the rear platform, from which he either stepped off or fell off upon the track, where he lay for about two hours, when he was run over by another train. It was held that, although Kassen may have been negligent in going upon the rear platform and stepping or falling off, yet since the railroad company knew of his peril and had ample time to remove him or to notify the trainmen on the later train, its negligence in not doing so was the proximate cause of Kassen’s death and the negligence of Kassen was remote. In that case the proximate cause and the remote cause were so clearly distinguishable, and it is so very evident from the opinion and the syllabus that this distinction was the real ground of the judgment of the court, that it is somewhat surprising that the doctrine of last chance as stated in that case should have been so often misinterpreted as a qualification of the doctrine of contributory negligence.

It is clear, then, that the last chance rule should not be given as a hit or miss rule in every case involving negligence. It should be given with discrimination. Since the plaintiff can recover only upon the allegations of his petition, if there is no charge in the petition that the defendant after having notice of the plaintiff’s peril could have avoided the injury to plaintiff, and there is no testimony to support such charge, the giving of such a charge would be erroneous. There is no such allegation in the petition in this case. But further, there is testimony tending to prove that the plaintiff’s team was driven upon the street railway track in the night time, ahead of the car, and that it continued on the track for a distance of two hundred and fifty feet until struck by the car, without taking any precaution to avoid accident. Assuming that the defendant was negligent in not seeing the buggy on the track and in not avoiding the accident, yet the plaintiff’s negligence was continuous and was concurrent at the very moment of the collision. It proximately contributed to the collision, for without it the collision would not have occurred. There was no new act of negligence by the defendant, which was independent of the concurrent negligence and which made the latter remote. Therefore there was no place in the case for the doctrine of “the last clear chance.”

[Remainder of opinion omitted.]