Pilmer v. Boise Traction Co., Ltd.

Citation94 P. 432,14 Idaho 327
PartiesCARRIE PILMER, Administratrix, Appellant, v. BOISE TRACTION CO., LTD., Respondent
Decision Date19 February 1908
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

STREET RAILROADS-NONSUIT-EVIDENCE, HOW CONSTRUED-ACCIDENT-INJURY-NEGLIGENCE-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-QUESTIONS FOR JURY-SPEED OF CAR-CONCLUSIONS FROM EVIDENCE-DIFFERENT CONCLUSION-COURT TO DETERMINE WHEN-JURY WHEN-BURDEN OF PROVING MATTER OF DEFENSE-NEGLIGENCE PER SE-PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURY-DUTY OF MOTORMAN-STREET CROSSING-DOCTRINE OF "LAST CLEAR CHANCE"-NEGLIGENCE PROXIMATE AND REMOTE.

1. A motion for a nonsuit admits the truth of plaintiff's evidence and every inference of fact that can be legitimately drawn therefrom, and on such motion the evidence must be interpreted most strongly against the defendant.

2. In an action to recover damages for the injury or death of a person, by reason of being run against and over by a street-car, a motion for a nonsuit at the close of the plaintiff's evidence should not be granted unless the facts presented by the evidence are such that but one conclusion could reasonably be drawn from them, and that conclusion is, that no recovery can be had under the evidence.

3. It is the province of the court to determine that conclusion and grant a nonsuit; but if different minds might reasonably reach different conclusions from such evidence, the motion for a nonsuit should be denied and the case submitted to the jury.

4. In this class of cases the burden of proving contributory negligence is with the defendant.

5. Failure to look and listen before crossing a street-car track at a public street crossing is not, as a matter of law negligence per se.

6. The right and duty of pedestrians and the right and duty of the person in charge of the motive power of a street-car when crossing streets are reciprocal, and each is bound to use equal diligence to avoid collision.

7. Negligence on the part of a person which was not the proximate cause of his injury or death will not be a bar to his recovery.

8. The proximate cause of an event is that which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a new cause, produces that event, and without which that event would not have occurred.

9. In cases of this kind, the question as to what is the proximate cause of the injury is a question for the jury.

10. Held, under the facts of this case, that the question of the proximate cause of the accident should have been submitted to the jury.

11. A street-car should be kept under the reasonable control of the motorman when crossing a street, and persons with or without vehicles, passing over the track at street crossings, may assume that care will be used to reduce the speed at such crossings.

12. A person who has the last clear chance or opportunity of avoiding an accident, notwithstanding the negligence of his opponent, is considered in law solely responsible for such accident.

13. Although the action of the one injured may have been the primary cause of the injury, yet an action for such injury may be maintained if it be shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, have avoided the consequences of the injured party's negligence.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from the District Court of Third Judicial District for Ada County. Hon. Fremont Wood, Judge.

Action by administratrix to recover damages for the killing of her intestate by a street railway car. Judgment, on motion for a nonsuit, in favor of the defendant. Reversed.

Judgment reversed, a new trial granted, and cause remanded. Costs awarded to appellant.

Hawley Puckett & Hawley, for Appellant.

"By a motion for nonsuit the defendant admits the existence of every fact which the evidence tends to prove, or which can be gathered from any reasonable view of the evidence." (Later v. Haywood, 12 Idaho 78, 85 P. 494.)

"The trial court is bound to submit the case to the jury, unless no recovery could be had upon any view that could be properly taken of the facts which the evidence tends to establish." (1 Thompson on Negligence, 409; 3 Hutchinson on Carriers, sec. 1174; McAlpine v. Laydon, 115 Cal 68, 46 P. 865; Wahlgren v. Market St. Ry. Co., 132 Cal. 656, 64 P. 993; Hone v. Mammoth Mining Co., 27 Utah 168, 75 P. 381.)

The defendant company was guilty of negligence, in that its motorman did not have his car under that control which the equal rights of pedestrians required. (Nellis on Street Railroad Accident Law, 278; Roberts v. Spokane St. Ry Co., 23 Wash. 325, 63 P. 506; Mauer v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 84 N.Y.S. 76, 87 A.D. 119; Searls v. Elizabeth & C. J. Co., 70 N.J.L. 388, 57 A. 134; Sesselman v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 78 N.Y.S. 482, 483, 76 A.D. 336.)

"While, generally speaking, one who is about to cross a street railway should both look and listen for cars, this is not an inflexible rule, nor is to be enforced with any such strictness as in the case of an ordinary steam railroad; it is not negligence as a matter of law to attempt to do so." (Richmond P. & P. Co. v. Gordon, 102 Va. 498, 46 S.E. 772; Shea v. St. Paul R. Co., 50 Minn. 395, 52 N.W. 902; Peterson v. Minneapolis R. Co., 90 Minn. 52, 95 N.W. 751; Cincinnati St. R. Co. v. Snell, 54 Ohio St. 197, 43 N.E. 207, 32 L. R. A. 276; Read v. Brooklyn R. Co., 53 N.Y.S. 209, 32 A.D. 503; Cons. Traction Co. v. Scott, 58 N.J.L. 682, 55 Am. St. Rep. 620, 34 A. 1094, 33 L. R. A. 122; Chicago St. Ry. Co. v. O'Donnel, 208 Ill. 267, 70 N.E. 294; Cincinnati St. Ry. Co. v. Whitcomb, 66 F. 915, 14 C. C. A. 183; Robbins v. Springfield R. Co., 165 Mass. 30, 42 N.E. 334; Chauvin v. Detroit R. Co., 135 Mich. 85, 97 N.W. 160; Lane v. Brooklyn R. Co., 82 N.Y.S. 1057, 85 A.D. 85; Marden v. Portsmouth R. Co., 100 Me. 41, 109 Am. St. Rep. 476, 60 A. 630, 69 L. R. A. 300; Kansas City etc. R. Co. v. Gallagher, 68 Kan. 424, 75 P. 469, 64 L. R. A. 344; Campbell v. Los Angeles R. Co., 137 Cal. 565, 567, 70 P. 624.)

Pilmer had a right to rely on the defendant's controlling its car, and he was not guilty of negligence in passing over the track in front of the car. Failure to look and listen is not negligence per se. (Philbin v. Denver St. Term. Co., 36 Colo. 331, 85 P. 630; Finnick v. Boston etc. Co., 190 Mass. 382, 77 N.E. 500; Brozek v. Steinway Co., 10 A.D. 360, 41 N.Y.S. 1017; Walls v. Rochester Co., 92 Hun, 581, 36 N.Y.S. 1102; Read v. Brooklyn Heights Co., 32 A.D. 503, 53 N.Y.S. 209-211, 32 A.D. 503; Newark Pass. Co. v. Block, 55 N.J.L. 605, 27 A. 1067, 22 L. R. A. 374; Fairbanks v. Bangor R. Co., 95 Me. 78, 49 A. 421; Bullman v. Metropolitan Ry. Co., 85 N.Y.S. 325; Consolidated Trac. Co. v. Haight, 59 N.J.L. 577, 30 A. 135; Dennis v. North Jersey Ry. Co., 64 N.J.L. 439, 45 A. 807; Garrity v. Detroit Co., 120 Mich. 369, 70 N.W. 1018, 37 L. R. A. 529; Smith v. Minneapolis St. R. Co., 95 Minn. 254, 104 N.W. 16, 18; Chisholm v. Seattle Co., 27 Wash. 237, 67 P. 601.)

"The duty imposed upon persons crossing steam railway tracks to stop, look and listen is not rigidly applied to persons traveling a street used by a street railway." (Finnick v. Boston etc. Co., 190 Mass. 382, 77 N.E. 500; Indianapolis St. Ry. Co. v. Schmidt, 35 Ind.App. 202, 72 N.E. 478, 71 N.E. 663; Brozek v. Steinway Co., 10 A.D. 360, 41 N.Y.S. 1017; Smith v. Minnesota etc. Ry. Co., 95 Minn. 254, 104 N.W. 16; Kramm v. Stockton etc. Co., 3 Cal.App. 606, 86 P. 738.)

"The rights of the pedestrian . . . . and of the person in charge of the motive power of a street railway are reciprocal, and each is bound to use equal diligence to avoid a collision." (Nellis on Street Railroad Accident Law, 252; Zimmerman v. Union etc. Co., 38 N.Y.S. 362, 3 A.D. 219.)

Any negligence on the part of plaintiff's intestate, which was not the proximate cause of the injury, will not be a bar to plaintiff's recovery. (Smithwick v. Hall & Upson Co., 59 Conn. 261, 21 Am. St. Rep. 104, 21 A. 924, 12 L. R. A. 279, and notes.)

If the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, it was its duty to do so, and a failure in that regard will subject it to responsibility in damages, regardless of plaintiff's negligence in placing himself in a dangerous position. (Davies v. Mann, 10 Mees. & W. 546; Haley v. Earle, 30 N.Y. 208; Trow v. Vermont Co., 24 Vt. 487, 58 Am. Dec. 191; Locke v. First Division etc. R. Co., 15 Minn. 350; Thompson v. Salt Lake R. T. Co., 16 Utah 281, 67 Am. St. Rep. 621, 52 P 92, 40 L. R. A. 172; 1 Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, par. 99; Aldridge v. St. Louis Trac. Co., 101 Mo.App. 77, 74 S.W. 141; Omaha St. R. Co. v. Larson, 70 Neb. 591, 97 N.W. 824; Holden v. Miss. R. Co., 177 Mo. 456, 76 S.W. 973; Hanheide v. St. Louis Transit Co., 104 Mo.App. 323, 78 S.W. 820; Metropolitan St. R. Co. v. Arnold, 67 Kan. 260, 72 P. 857; Kolb v. St. Louis Transit Co., 102 Mo.App. 143, 76 S.W. 1050; Kansas City etc. Co. v. Gallagher, 68 Kan. 424, 75 P. 469, 64 L. R. A. 344; Galveston etc. Co. v. Hanna, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 608, 79 S.W. 639; Degel v. St. Louis T. Co., 101 Mo.App. 56, 74 S.W. 156; Shanks v. Springfield etc. Co., 101 Mo.App. 702, 74 S.W. 386; Orr v. Cedar Rapids etc. Co., 94 Iowa 423, 62 N.W. 851; Bogan v. Caroline etc. R. Co., 129 N.C. 154, 39 S.E. 808, 55 L. R. A. 418; Harrington v. Los Angeles R. Co., 140 Cal. 514, 98 Am. St. Rep. 85, 74 P. 15; Lee v. Market St. R. Co., 135 Cal. 293, 67 P. 765; Walls v. Rochester Ry. Co., 92 Hun. 581, 36 N.Y.S. 1102; Philbin v. Denver etc. Co., 36 Colo. 331, 85 P. 630; South Chicago Co. v. Kinnare, 216 Ill. 451, 75 N.E. 179; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Hyndshaw, 116 Ill.App. 367; Indianapolis Co. v. Bolin, 39 Ind.App. 169, 78 N.E. 210; Deitring v. St. Louis Co., 109 Mo.App. 524, 85 S.W. 140; Turnbull v. New Orleans Co., 120 F. 783, 57 C. C. A. 151; Goff v. St. Louis Tran. Co., 199 Mo. 694, 98 S.W. 49, 9 L. R. A., N....

To continue reading

Request your trial
68 cases
  • Short v. Boise Valley Traction Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 13 Febrero 1924
    ...85 P. 494.) The theory of this case is based upon the doctrine of "last clear chance" and the rule of "discovered peril." (Pilmer v. Boise Traction Co., Ltd., supra; Denbeigh v. Oregon-Wash. R. & N. Co., 23 Idaho 132 P. 112; Anderson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 15 Idaho 513, 99 P. 91; Lassit......
  • Faris v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 1 Noviembre 1929
    ... ... Power Co., 22 Idaho 20, 124 P. 783; Powers v. Boise ... City, 22 Idaho 286, 125 P. 194; Kerby v. Oregon ... Short Line R ... appear to the trial judge. ( Short v. Boise Valley ... Traction Co., 38 Idaho 593, 225 P. 398; Ellis v ... Ashton & St. Anthony Power ... jury. ( Pilmer v. Boise Traction Co., 14 Idaho 327, ... 125 Am. St. 161, 94 P. 432, 15 ... ...
  • McAlinden v. St. Maries Hospital Ass'n
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 11 Marzo 1916
    ... ... would not be liable. ( Miller v. Northern P. R. Co., ... 24 Idaho 567, Ann. Cas. 1915C, 1214, 135 P. 845, 48 ... Kehl, 21 Idaho 595, 123 P ... 301; Pilmer v. Boise Traction Co., 14 Idaho 327, 125 ... Am. St. 161, ... ...
  • Hansen v. Standard Oil Co. of California
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 30 Abril 1935
    ... ... cause of the injury. ( Pilmer v. Boise Traction Co., ... 14 Idaho 327, at p. 341, 94 P. 432, 125 Am ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT