Short v. Boise Valley Traction Co.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
• Writing for the Court: DUNN, J.
• Citation: 225 P. 398,38 Idaho 593
• Decision Date: 13 February 1924
• Parties: ADA SHORT, Widow of OLIVER F. SHORT, Jr., Deceased, and MARY SHORT, Minor Child of Said Deceased, by W. C. DUNBAR, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondents, v. BOISE VALLEY TRACTION COMPANY, a Corporation, HERBERT L. MARKS and GUY SPRAGUE, Appellants

225 P. 398

38 Idaho 593

ADA SHORT, Widow of OLIVER F. SHORT, Jr., Deceased, and MARY SHORT, Minor Child of Said Deceased, by W. C. DUNBAR, Her Guardian ad Litem, Respondents,
v.
BOISE VALLEY TRACTION COMPANY, a Corporation, HERBERT L. MARKS and GUY SPRAGUE, Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

February 13, 1924

NEGLIGENCE-CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-LAST CLEAR CHANCE-QUESTIONS FOR JURY-EXCESSIVE DAMAGES.

1. In case of the death of a person by the negligence of another the fact that deceased was guilty of contributory negligence will not bar a recovery by his heirs if the party inflicting the injury saw the deceased when his position became one of actual peril, and yet in time, by the exercise of reasonable care, to avoid inflicting the injury.

2. Whether the party inflicting the injury did so see deceased in time to avoid inflicting the injury, and, if it did so see him, used reasonable care to avoid injuring him, are questions to be submitted to the jury in case of conflicting evidence.

3. Before a verdict can be set aside on the ground of "excessive damages, appearing to have been given under the influence of passion or prejudice," such fact must be made clearly to appear to the trial judge.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, for Ada County. Hon. Chas. P. McCarthy, Judge.

Action for damages. Judgment for plaintiffs. Affirmed.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs to respondents. Petition for rehearing denied.

Hawley & Hawley and C. T. Ward, for Appellants.

The last chance doctrine can only apply where there is a last clear chance to save with the means at hand, and does not apply either where the decedent was guilty of negligence concurring in the accident or where after the decedent was beyond helping himself the appellant had not the ability to save him. (Pilmer v. Boise Valley Traction Co., 14 Idaho 327, 94 P. 432, 15 L. R. A., N. S., 254; Anderson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 15 Idaho 513, 99 P. 91; Rippetoe v. Feeley, 20 Idaho 619, 119 P. 465; Denbeigh v. O. W. R. & N. Co., 23 Idaho 663, 132 P. 112; Dyerson v. Union P. Co., 74 Kan. 528, 11 Ann. Cas. 207, 87 P. 680, 7 L. R. A., N. S., 132; Southern Ry. Co. v. Bayley, 110 Va. 833, 78 S.E. 365, 27 L. R. A., N. S., 379; Old v. Hines, 95 Ore. 580, 187 P. 586, 188 P. 716; Woolf v. Washington R. N. Co., 37 Wash. 491, 79 P. 997; Young v. Southern P. Co., 189 Cal. 746, 210 P. 259; Thompson v. Los Angeles etc. R. Co., 165 Cal. 748, 134 P. 709; Bruggeman v. Illinois etc. R. Co., 147 Iowa 187, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 877, 123 N.W. 1007; Bourrett v. C. N.W. Ry. Co. (Iowa), 121 N.W. 380; Cavanah v. Boston & M. R. Co., 76 N.H. 68, 79 A. 694; Terre Haute etc. Co. v. Stevenson, 189, Ind. 100, 123 N.E. 785; Lock v. Puget Sound etc. R. Co., 100 Wash. 432, 171 P. 242, L. R. A. 1918D, 1119; Ziomko v. Puget Sound etc. R. Co., 112 Wash. 426, 192 P. 1009; Emmons v. Southern P. Co., 97 Ore. 263, 191 P. 333; Rooney v. Levinson, 95 Conn. 466, 111 A. 794.)

Concurring negligence will prevent a recovery. Here the decedent's negligence in failing to observe his surroundings and stop his auto concurred with any negligence of appellant in failing to whistle and these negligences concurred to put decedent in a position where nothing could save him. (Plinkrewisch v. Portland R. L. & P. Co., 58 Ore. 499, 115 P. 151; Holmes v. Southern P. R. Co., 97 Cal. 161, 31 P. 834; 29 Cyc. 530; Wolfe v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co., 166 Iowa 506, 147 N.W. 901; Melzner v. Northern P. Ry. Co., 46 Mont. 162, 127 P. 146; Shanks v. Springfield Trac. Co., 101 Mo.App. 702, 74 S.W. 386; Young v. Southern P. Co., supra.)

The motorman has a right to assume that one approaching the track in an auto will not attempt a reckless crossing. (Clark v. Southern P. Ry. Co., 24 Okla. 764, 108 P. 361; Union P. v. Cappier, 66 Kan. 649, 71 P. 281, 69 L. R. A. 513; Emmons v. Southern P. Ry. Co., 97 Ore. 263, 191 P. 337; Sanford v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 190 Mich. 390, 157 N.W. 38; Green v. Los Angeles etc. R., 143 Cal. 31, 101 Am. St. 68, 76 P. 719.)

Contributory negligence of the decedent without which the accident would not have occurred will bar recovery in this case. (Rippetoe v. Feely, supra; Wheeler v. Oregon R. R. etc. Co., supra; Rickert v. Union P. R. Co., 100 Neb. 304, 160 N.W. 86; Glick v. Cumberland etc. Ry. Co., 124 Md. 308, 92 A. 778; Virginia etc. Ry. Co. v. Skinner, 119 Va. 843, 89 S.E. 887; Phillips v. Washington Ry. Co., 104 Md. 455, 10 Ann. Cas. 334, 65 A. 422; State v. United Ry. & E. Co., 97 Md. 73, 54 A. 612; Nehring v. Connecticut Co., 86 Conn. 109, 84 A. 301, 45 L. R. A., N. S., 896.)

It was error for the court to fail to instruct the jury that in determining the amount to be awarded plaintiffs for loss of future support and of future society, protection, etc., the verdict should be such sum as, being put out to interest, will each year by taking a part of the principal and adding it to the interest yield an amount sufficient to cover the beneficiaries' loss for the entire period upon which the loss is based, less deductions arising from probable contingencies during that period. (St. Louis etc. Ry. Co. v. Robbins, 57 Ark. 377, 21 S.W. 886; Watson v. Seaboard etc. Ry., 133 N.C. 188; 45 S.E. 555; McAdory v. Louisville etc. R. Co., 94 Ala. 272, 10 So. 507; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Tramwell, 93 Ala. 350, 9 So. 870; Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Jones, 130 Ala. 456, 30 So. 586; Atlantic etc. R. Co. v. Newton, 85 Ga. 883, 11 S.E. 776; note, L. R. A. 1917F, 373.)

A verdict is excessive where the interest on the amount awarded exceeds the annual earnings of the decedent. (Graham v. Allen etc. Co., 78 Wash. 589, 139 P. 591; St. Louis etc. R. Co. v. Robbins, 57 Ark. 377, 21 S.W. 886; Maloney v. Winston Bros. Co., 18 Idaho 740, 111 P. 1080, 47 L. R. A., N. S., 634; Little Rock etc. Ry. Co. v. Barker, 33 Ark. 350, 34 Am. Rep. 44; Delaski v. North Western Imp. Co., 70 Wash. 143, 126 P. 421.)

C. C. Cavanah, Frawley & Koelsch and L. W. Tennyson, for Respondents.

The court did not err in denying defendants' motion for nonsuit, as there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury and deny defendants' motion for directed verdict. (McKenna v. Grunbaum, 33 Idaho 46, 190 P. 919; Dellwo v. Peterson, 32 Idaho 172, 180 P. 167; Stewart v. Stewart, 32 Idaho 180, 180 P. 155; Riordan v. Equitable Life, etc., 31 Idaho 657, 175 P. 586; Donovan v. Boise City, 31 Idaho 324, 171 P. 670; Johansen v. Looney, 31 Idaho 754, 176 P. 778; Tipsword v. Potter, 31 Idaho 509, 6 A. L. R. 527, 174 P. 133; Palcher v. Oregon S. L. Ry., 31 Idaho 93, 169 P. 298; Goldensmith v. Snowstorm M. Co., 28 Idaho 403, 154 P. 968; Southern Idaho Adventists v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 26 Idaho 712, 145 P. 502; Smith v. Potlatch Co., 22 Idaho 782, 128 P. 546; Keane v. Pittsburg Lead M. Co., 17 Idaho 179, 105 P. 60; Stricker v. Hillis, 17 Idaho 646, 106 P. 1128; Pilmer v. Boise Traction Co., 14 Idaho 327, 125 Am. St. 161, 94 P. 432, 15 L. R. A., N. S., 254; Later v. Haywood, 12 Idaho 78, 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 663, 132 P. 112; Anderson v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 15 Idaho 513, 99 P. 91; Lassiter v. Raleigh etc. R. Co., 133 N.C. 244, 45 S.E. 570, 36 L. R. A., N. S., 957, 958, note; Locke v. Puget Sound Internatl. R. N. P. Co., 100 Wash. 432, 171 P. 242, L. R. A. 1918D, 1119; Mosso v. E. H. Stanton Co., 75 Wash. 220, 134 P. 941, L. R. A. 1916A, 943; Bruggeman v. Illinois Central R. Co., 147 Iowa 187, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 876, 123 N.W. 1007; Norman v. Charlotte Electric R. Co., 107 N.C. 533, Ann. Cas. 1916E, 508, 83 S.E. 835; Welsh v. Tri-City Ry. Co., 148 Iowa 200, 126 N.W. 1118; Mondt v. Iowa Ry. & Light Co. (Iowa), 155 N.W. 245; Cavanah v. Boston & M. R. R., 76 N.H. 68, 79 A. 694; Terre Haute, I. & E. Traction Co. v. Stevenson, 189 Ind. 100, 123 N.E. 785; Carrahan v. Boston & N. St. Ry. Co., 198 Mass. 549, 126 Am. St. 461, 85 N.E. 162; Texas Cent. R. Co. v. Dumas (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S.W. 543; Trochta v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (Tex.), 218 S.W. 1038; Underwood v. Old Colony St. Ry. Co., 33 R.I. 319, 80 A. 390; Ellis v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., 233 Mo. 657, 138 S.W. 23; ...