Bash v. Baltimore & OR Co.
Decision Date | 03 February 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 6713.,6713. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Parties | BASH v. BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. |
Wm. M. Kahanowitz, of Greensburg, Pa., and Clarence B. Nixon, Harry J. Nesbit, and John B. Gordon, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellant.
E. V. Buckley and Pugliese & Evans, all of Pittsburgh, Pa., for appellee.
Before BIGGS, MARIS, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
This appeal presents the pathetic pattern of the grade crossing accident. A family's breadwinner going about his daily work (in this instance trucking coal) is snuffed out by the operation of a transportation system essential to his welfare (it carried the coal) and that of his fellow citizens. More than forty years ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court formulated the problem in these rather graphic phrases:
Newhard v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 153 Pa. 417, 421, 26 A. 105, 106, 19 L.R.A. 563.
Since then the "greatest good" has shifted its emphasis and the "greatest number", i. e., the users of the highways, have insisted upon the protection and elimination of crossings at grade (For Fewer and Safer Grade Crossings, The American City, March, 1929, p. 104; Stop, Look, and Listen!, The Forum and Century, October 1934, p. 239).
It will be noticed that we have quoted from a Pennsylvania case. That leads us to call attention to the rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487. This abandonment of Federal general law has occasioned some controversy among the theorists (Shulman, The Demise of Swift v. Tyson, 47 Yale L.J. 1336; McCormick and Hewins, The Collapse of "General" Law in the Federal Courts, 33 Ill.L.Rev. 126; Schmidt, Substantive Law Applied by Federal Courts — Effect of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 16 Tex. L.Rev. 512; Schweppe, What Has Happened to Federal Jurisprudence?, 24 A.B. A.J. 421; Jackson, The Rise and Fall of Swift v. Tyson, 24 A.B.A.J. 609; Powell, The Constitutional Convention and Swift v. Tyson, 24 A.B.A.J. 862; Knightlinger, Swift v. Tyson Overruled, 13 Ind.L.J. 564; Fraenkel, Constitutional Issues in the Supreme Court 1937 Term, 87 U.Pa.L.R. 50; Stimson, Swift v. Tyson — What Remains?, Cornell Law Quarterly, December 1938, 54). Ours is, of course, not to reason why. The same is true of the bar and we speak of it here because counsel for the appellant relies on one of our own cases. Perucca v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 3 Cir., 35 F.2d 113.
The rulings of the courts have been shaped to supplement this mechanical avoidance of accident. The writer of this opinion happened to be on the bench of the District Court at the time of the pronouncement of the dictum in the case of Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66, 70, 48 S.Ct. 24, 72 L.Ed. 167, 56 A.L.R. 645 ( ). He remembers the attendant legal excitement and the rash of articles in law reviews. The best of them are collected in note 1 of the discussion in 15 Cornell Law Quarterly 136. Whether these judicial shapings have accomplished their purpose may be debatable. For instance, the learned writer of the article above cited and the former and learned Chief Justice of Pennsylvania are not in complete agreement.
Glushien, Torts: Contributory negligence: Duty of traveler crossing railroad tracks, (Notes and Comments) 15 Cornell Law Quarterly 136, 139.
Trial by Jury, 2d Ed., von Moschzisker, Sec. 321.
The solution may belong in the legislative department. Minn.Stat.Mason's 1927, c. 28, § 4743-1 et seq. Cf. Matson, Experience with the Minnesota Grade Crossing Stop Law, 36 Am.City 478.
Furthermore the greater the departure from the general to the particular standard, the greater the complexity of application for the trial court and the greater the opportunity for appealable error. According to Professors Morgan and Farley, we are unlikely to have the compensation of understanding and acceptance by a jury of the guidance offered.
"No extended experience at the bar or upon the trial bench is required to produce a vivid realization that only in the exceptional case is the jury decisively influenced by the judge's instructions." Morgan, Instructing the Jury Upon Presumptions and Burden of Proof, 47 Harvard Law Review 59.
Farley, Instructions to Juries — Their Role in the Judicial Process, 42 Yale Law Journal 194, 213-214.
In the case at bar we do not reach the legal intricacies of the "stop, look, and listen" rule. Another and simpler principle halts us on its threshold. This is the so-called Incontrovertible Physical Facts Rule (10 R.C.L. sec. 198, p. 1009; Words and Phrases, Fourth Series, Incontrovertible, p. 314).
Truth is as much of the essence of the court as of the laboratory. The distillation of that essence is from an uncertain, because human, rather than from a certain, because chemical, element. To put it another way, the human and the mathematical equation are not the same. A principal test tube of the courts carries the legal encyclical — credibility of witnesses.
"The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh well to his going."
Prov. xix. 15.
"It is a wild conceit that any court of justice is bound...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baltimore & OR Co. v. Muldoon
...v. New York Central R. R. Co., 278 Pa. 366, 123 A. 308; Hawk v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 307 Pa. 214, 160 A. 862; Bash v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co., 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 48. Considered in this light the evidence disclosed these pertinent The accident occurred on the morning of January 27, 1935,......
-
Kurn v. Maxwell
... ... the whistle or ring the bell ... The ... defendants rely upon Bash v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 3 ... Cir., 102 F.2d 48; Kurn et al. v. Jones, 187 ... Okl. 94, 101 P.2d 242; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v ... Flowers, ... ...
-
Reeves v. Philadelphia Import Co.
...which the verdict is based, is so inherently improbable as to bring it within the scope of the doctrine illustrated by Bash v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 48, Lessig v. Reading Transit & Light Co., 270 Pa. 299, 302, 113 A. Appellant questions the hospital and medical bills tot......