Action v. Fargo & Moorhead Street Railway Company

• Decision Date: 24 September 1910
• Citation: 129 N.W. 225,20 N.D. 434
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

129 N.W. 225

20 N.D. 434

WILLIAM ACTION v. FARGO & MOORHEAD STREET RAILWAY COMPANY

Supreme Court of North Dakota

September 24, 1910

Rehearing denied December 30, 1910.

Appeal from District Court, Cass county; Pollock, J.

Action by William Acton against Fargo & Moorhead Street Railway Company. From an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or for a new trial, and from the judgment, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Stambaugh & Fowler, attorneys for appellant.

One traveling by night on a railway track must watch for approaching cars. Adolph v. Central Park, N. & E. River R. Co. 76 N.Y. 532; North Hudson County R. Co. v Isley, 49 N.J.L. 468, 10 A. 665; Wood v. Detroit City R. Co. 52 Mich. 402, 50 Am. Rep. 259, 18 N.W. 124; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Moseley, 6 C. C. A. 641, 12 U.S. App. 601, 57 F. 921; Mynning v. Detroit, L. & N. R Co. 59 Mich. 257, 26 N.W. 514; Robards v Indianapolis Street R. Co. 32 Ind.App. 297, 66 N.E. 66, 67 N.E. 953; Everett v. Los Angeles Consol. Electric R. Co. 115 Cal. 105, 34 L.R.A. 350, 46 P. 889, 43 P. 207; Carson v. Federal Street & P. Valley R. Co. 147 Pa. 219, 15 L.R.A. 257, 30 Am. St. Rep. 727, 23 A. 369; Butler v. Rockland, T. & C. Street R. Co. 99 Me. 149, 105 Am. St. Rep. 267, 58 A. 775; Green v. Los Angeles Terminal R. Co. 143 Cal. 31, 101 Am. St. Rep. 68, 76 P. 724; Tesch v. Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co. 108 Wis. 593, 53 L.R.A. 618, 84 N.W. 823; Rider v. Syracuse Rapid Transit R. Co. 171 N.Y. 139, 58 L.R.A. 125, 63 N.E. 836; Holwerson v. St. Louis & Suburban R. Co. 157 Mo. 216, 50 L.R.A. 850, 57 S.W. 770; Cawley v. LaCrosse City R. Co. 101 Wis. 145, 77 N.W. 179, 106 Wis. 239, 82 N.W. 197; Markowitz v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 186 Mo. 350, 69 L.R.A. 389, 85 S.W. 351; Bogan v. Carolina C. R. Co. 55 L.R.A. 418, and cases cited in note, 129 N.C. 154, 39 S.E. 808.

To warrant the application of the "last clear chance," plaintiff's negligence must continue up to and contribute to the injury. 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 2d ed. Supp. p. 64; Dyerson v. Union P. R. Co. 74 Kan. 528, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 133, 87 P. 680, 11 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 207; Everett v. Los Angeles Consol. Electric R. Co. 115 Cal. 105, 34 L.R.A. 350, 46 P. 889, 43 P. 207; Rider v. Syracuse Rapid Transit R. Co. 171 N.Y. 139, 58 L.R.A. 127, 63 N.E. 836; Holwerson v. St. Louis & Suburban R. Co. 157 Mo. 216, 50 L.R.A. 850, 57 S.W. 770; Tesch v. Milwaukee Electric R. & Light Co. 108 Wis. 593, 53 L.R.A. 618, 84 N.W. 823; Robards v. Indianapolis Street R. Co. 32 Ind.App. 297, 66 N.E. 66, 67 N.E. 953; Green v. Los Angeles Terminal R. Co. 143 Cal. 31, 101 Am. St. Rep. 68, 76 P. 724; Vizaccheroo v. Rhode Island Co. 26 R. I. 392, 69 L.R.A. 191, 59 A. 105; State use of Meidling v. United R. & Electric Co. 97 Md. 73, 54 A. 612; Wood v. Detroit City Street R. Co. 52 Mich. 402, 50 Am. Rep. 259, 18 N.W. 124; Hot Springs Street R. Co. v. Johnson, 64 Ark. 420, 42 S.W. 833; Cullen v. Baltimore & P. R. Co. 8 App. D. C. 69. See note to Gahagan v. Boston & M. R. Co. 55 L.R.A. 434; Smith v. Norfolk & S. R. Co. 114 N.C. 728, 25 L.R.A. 287, 19 S.E. 863, 923; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Staggs, Tex. Civ. App. , 37 S.W. 609; Austin Dam & Suburban R. Co. v. Goldstein, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 704, 45 S.W. 600.

If the findings are inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment cannot be rendered, and a new trial must be ordered. Dickerson v. Waldo, 13 Okla. 189, 74 P. 505; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hamlin, 67 Kan. 476, 73 P. 58; Healey v. New York, N.H. & H. R. Co. 20 R. I. 136, 37 A. 676; Gwin v. Gwin, 5 Idaho, 271, 48 P. 295; Sloss v. Allman, 64 Cal. 47, 30 P. 574.

Error to instruct jury after arguments, to make special findings conform to general verdict. Coffeyville Vitrified Brick Co. v. Zimmerman, 61 Kan. 750, 60 P. 1064; Kilpatrick-Koch Dry-Goods Co. v. Kahn, 53 Kan. 274, 36 P. 327; Special verdicts. Mechanics' Bank v. Barnes, 86 Mich. 632, 49 N.W. 475; Cole v. Boyd, 47 Mich. 98, 10 N.W. 124; Ryan v. Rockford Ins. Co. 77 Wis. 611, 46 N.W. 885; Des Moines & D. Land & Tree Co. v. Polk County Homestead & T. Co. 82 Iowa 663, 45 N.W. 773.

Barnett & Richardson, for respondent.

That a street car drives upon a vehicle ahead of it is of itself proof of negligence. 2 Thomp. Neg. 76; Conway v. New Orleans City & Lake R. Co. 51 La.Ann. 146, 24 So. 780; Indianapolis Street R. Co. v. Darnell, 32 Ind.App. 687, 68 N.E. 609; Floyd v. Paducah R. & Light Co. 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1077, 64 S.W. 653; Richmond Pass. & Power Co. v. Allen, 103 Va. 532, 49 S.E. 656; Greene v. Louisville R. Co. 119 Ky. 862, 84 S.W. 1154, 7 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1126; Schilling v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 47 A.D. 500, 62 N.Y.S. 403; Moritz v. St. Louis Transit Co. 102 Mo.App. 657, 77 S.W. 477; United R. & Electric Co. v. Cloman, 107 Md. 681, 69 A. 379.

A street railway company has no superior rights on the highway. Citizens' Street R. Co. v. Hamer, 29 Ind.App. 426, 62 N.E. 658, 63 N.E. 778; Barry v. Burlington R. & Light Co. 119 Iowa 62, 93 N.W. 68, 95 N.W. 229; Shea v. St. Paul City R. Co. 50 Minn. 395, 52 N.W. 902; Watson v. Minneapolis Street R. Co. 53 Minn. 551, 55 N.W. 742; Mertz v. Detroit Electric R. Co. 125 Mich. 11, 83 N.W. 1036; Rascher v. East Detroit & G. P. R. Co. 90 Mich. 413, 30 Am. St. Rep. 447, 51 N.W. 463; La Pontney v. Shedden Cartage Co. 116 Mich. 514, 74 N.W. 712; White v. Worcester Consol. Street R. Co. 167 Mass. 43, 44 N.E. 1052; Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Pheanis, 43 Ind.App. 653, 85 N.E. 1040; Swain v. Fourteenth Street R. Co. 93 Cal. 179, 28 P. 829; Will v. West Side R. Co. 84 Wis. 42, 54 N.W. 30.

To travel on a street railway track 60 or 70 feet is not of itself negligence. Wilkins v. Omaha & C. B. R. & Bridge Co. 96 Iowa 668, 65 N.W. 987; Bensiek v. St. Louis Transit Co. 125 Mo.App. 121, 102 S.W. 587; Cohen v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 34 Misc. 186, 68 N.Y.S. 830; Fishbach v. Steinway R. Co. 11 A.D. 152, 42 N.Y.S. 883; Schilling v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 47 A.D. 500, 62 N.Y.S. 403; Memphis Street R. Co. v. Haynes, 112 Tenn. 712, 81 S.W. 374; Noll v. St. Louis Transit Co. 100 Mo.App. 367, 73 S.W. 907; American Storage & Moving Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co. 120 Mo.App. 410, 97 S.W. 184; Ball v. Camden & T. R. Co. 76 N.J.L. 539, 72 A. 76; Consolidated Traction Co. v. Haight, 59 N.J.L. 577, 37 A. 135; Zolpher v. Camden & Suburban R. Co. 69 N.J.L. 417, 55 A. 249; Geoghegan v. Union R. Co. 122 A.D. 646, 107 N.Y.S. 503; Hot Springs Street R. Co. v. Hildreth, 72 Ark. 572, 82 S.W. 245; Ablard v. Detroit United R. Co. 139 Mich. 248, 102 N.W. 741; Vincent v. Norton & T. Street R. Co. 180 Mass. 104, 61 N.E. 822; Benjamin v. Holyoke Street R. Co. 160 Mass. 3, 39 Am. St. Rep. 446, 35 N.E. 95; Funck v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 133 Mo.App. 419, 113 S.W. 694; Mayes v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 121 Mo.App. 614, 97 S.W. 612; Muller v. New York City R. Co. 51 Misc. 640, 101 N.Y.S. 98; Blakeslee v. Consolidated Street R. Co. 112 Mich. 63, 70 N.W. 408.

A traveler on a street car track may presume a proper lookout and warning from an approaching car. Indianapolis Street R. Co. v. Marschke, 166 Ind. 490, 77 N.E. 945; American Storage & Moving Co. v. St. Louis Transit Co. 120 Mo.App. 410, 97 S.W. 184; Cohen v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 34 Misc. 186, 68 N.Y.S. 830; Greene v. Louisville R. Co. 119 Ky. 862, 84 S.W. 1154, 7 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 1126; Memphis Street R. Co. v. Haynes, 112 Tenn. 712, 81 S.W. 374; 2 Thomp. Neg. 1448; Ablard v. Detroit United R. Co. 139 Mich. 248, 102 N.W. 741; Stanley v. Cedar Rapids & M. City R. Co. 119 Iowa 526, 93 N.W. 489; Vincent v. Norton & T. Street R. Co. 180 Mass. 104, 61 N.E. 822; Benjamin v. Holyoke Street R. Co. 160 Mass. 3, 39 Am. St. Rep. 446, 35 N.E. 95.

There is no presumption in favor of special findings, but there is every presumption in favor of a general verdict. Jeffersonville v. Gray, 165 Ind. 26, 74 N.E. 611; 20 Enc. Pl. & Pr. pp. 338, 353, 367; Mares v. Northern P. R. Co. 3 Dak. 336, 21 N.W. 5.

If there is any construction of a special finding that sustains the general verdict, it will be adopted. Grant v. Spokane Traction Co. 47 Wash. 112, 91 P. 553; Osburn v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 75 Kan. 746, 90 P. 289; Ft. Wayne Cooperage Co. v. Page, Ind.App. , 82 N.E. 83; Wendel v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 41 Ind.App. 460, 82 N.E. 469; Samson v. Zimmerman, 73 Kan. 654, 85 P. 757; Chicago & E. R. Co. v. Lawrence, 169 Ind. 319, 79 N.E. 363, 82 N.E. 768.

Contributory negligence is no defense, if defendant discovers or ought to discover the peril in time to avert it. Harrington v. Los Angeles R. Co. 140 Cal. 514, 63 L.R.A. 238, 98 Am. St. Rep. 85, 74 P. 15; Thompson v. Salt Lake Rapid Transit Co. 16 Utah 281, 40 L.R.A. 172, 67 Am. St. Rep. 621, 52 P. 92; Baltimore Consol. R. Co. v. Rifcowitz, 89 Md. 338, 43 A. 762; Hart v. Cedar Rapids & M. City R. Co. 109 Iowa 621, 52 P. 92; Baltimore Consol. R. Co. v. Rifcowitz, 89 Md. 338, 43 A. 762; Hart v. Cedar Rapids & M. City R. Co. 109 Iowa 631, 80 N.W. 662; Remillard v. Sioux City Traction Co. 138 Iowa 565, 115 N.W. 900; Ramsey v. Cedar Rapids & M. C. R. Co. 135 Iowa 329, 112 N.W. 798; Jett v. General Electric R. Co. 178 Mo. 664, 77 S.W. 738; St. Louis, B. & M. R. Co. v. Droddy, Tex. Civ. App. , 114 S.W. 902; Murray v. St. Louis Transit Co. 108 Mo.App. 501, 83 S.W. 995; Wichita R. & Light Co. v. Liebhart, 80 Kan. 91, 101 P. 457; Ruppel v. United R. Co. 10 Cal.App. 319, 101 P. 803; St. Louis Southwestern R. Co. v. Thompson, 89 Ark. 496, 117 S.W. 541; 2 Thomp. Neg. 1476.

Motorman cannot anticipate that a vehicle ahead of him will get out of the way. Mertz v. Detroit Electric R. Co. 125 Mich 11, 83 N.W. 1036; Manor v. Bay Cities Consol. R. Co. 118 Mich. 1, 76 N.W. 139; Prendenville v. St. Louis Transit Co. 128 Mo.App. 596, 107 S.W. 453; Greene v. Louisville R. Co. 119 Ky. 862, 84 S.W....