Wood v. Southern Pac. Co.
| Decision Date | 04 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 6623,6623 |
| Citation | 501 P.2d 652,88 Nev. 527 |
| Parties | Leslie Ann WOOD et al., Appellants, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Wilber Wood, James Fisher and Russell Pradere, while in the course of their employment with Sierra Pacific Power Company, sustained fatal injuries when the power company truck in which they were riding as passengers was struck by a train. This wrongful death action was commenced by their heirs against Southern Pacific Company, John Eggers, the operator of the diesel locomotive, and Robert Robinson, the senior engineer who supervised the operation of the locomotive and occupied the left-hand seat in the engineer's cab. The jury returned general verdicts upon which judgment was duly entered.
The appellants concede that the jury properly could have found that the defendants were not negligent but, by this appeal, assert that prejudicial error was committed by the trial court in submitting instructions about contributory negligence of the decedents as passengers in the truck. Since the general verdicts were not accompanied by answers to interrogatories, NRCP 49(b), substantial error in the charge of the court as to theories of liability or defense would require a remand for another trial. Otterbeck v. Lamb, 85 Nev. 456, 463, 456 P.2d 855 (1969); Lightenburger v. Gordon, 81 Nev. 553, 579, 407 P.2d 728 (1965). Subordinate errors also are assigned and will be considered.
1. The decedents as passengers in the power company truck were under a duty to exercise ordinary care for their own safety, and the court instructed the jury to that effect. 1 That instruction, couched in general terms, obviously was proper. The court was under no duty to further elaborate upon the concept of contributory negligence or embellish its scope by referring to particulars. Prell Hotel Corp. v. Antonacci, 86 Nev. 390, 392, 469 P.2d 399 (1970); Duran v. Mueller, 79 Nev. 453, 460, 386 P.2d 733 (1963).
The appellants offered an instruction based upon language from the opinion of this court in Otterbeck v. Lamb, 85 Nev. 456, 456 P.2d 855 (1969), to the effect that the decedents as passengers were not required to maintain a lookout nor were they under a duty to warn the driver absent the special circumstances outlined in the Otterbeck case. 2 Otterbeck does not stand for the proposition that the court was obliged to so instruct the jury. Indeed, Otterbeck specifically approved the first part of an instruction there considered which was almost identical to the instruction given here. That part read '(A) passenger in an automobile is under a legal duty to take ordinary precautions for her own safety and to use ordinary care for her own protection, and whether or not she exercises ordinary care for her own safety is a question of fact for the jury to decide.' We conclude, therefore, that the instruction given in this case was correct and that the court was not compelled to instruct further on the subject.
The appellant insist that there was absolutely no evidence in the record or inferences that reasonably could be drawn from the evidence to warrant submission of the issue of the decedents' contributory negligence to the jury. Contributory negligence, or the absence thereof, is usually a question of fact and becomes one of law only when the evidence is of such a character that it will support no other legitimate inference. Wagon Wheel Saloon & Gambling Hall, Inc. v. Mavrogan, 78 Nev. 126, 128, 369 P.2d 688 (1962); Carter v. City of Fallon, 54 Nev. 195, 201, 11 P.2d 817, 16 P.2d 655 (1932). Measured by this standard we are unable to find that the court erred in submitting this issue to the jury for resolution.
The accident occurred on a bright, clear autumn afternoon several miles west of Reno at a point where Mayberry Drive crosses the main line of the Southern Pacific railroad tracks. The driver of the truck and his passengers had a totally unobstructed view of more than 1500 feet of track upon which the trian was proceeding. The bell of the train's diesel engine commenced ringing more than 1325 feet west of the accident scene, its air whistles were blowing, and the headlight and oscillating light each was fully illuminated. Independent, disinterested witnesses heard the whistles blowing and stopped their conversation because of the noise therefrom. None of the passengers in the truck apparently paid the slightest attention to these circumstances. One must conclude that reasonable minds could differ as to whether the passengers exercised ordinary care for their own safety. That issue properly was submitted to the jury for decision.
2. The trial court refused to give a requested instruction that 'travelers using a public highway have the same right to the use of a grade crossing as the railroad company has; their rights are mutual and reciprocal.' In Southern Pacific Co. v. Watkins, 83 Nev. 471, 435 P.2d 498 (1967), we held that it was not error to give that instruction. Id. at 491, 435 P.2d 498. 3 It does not follow, however, that error occurs when the instruction is not given. Duran v. Mueller, 79 Nev. 453, 460, 386 P.2d 733 (1963). It was not a necessary instruction.
Other errors regarding jury instructions have been considered and found to be without merit.
3. The trial court would not allow the appellants to offer evidence that the Southern Pacific Company did not investigate the need for an automatic signal at the Mayberry crossing. This ruling is assigned as prejudicial error. That evidence presumably was offered to show that the intersection was dangerous. The record is full of evidence on that point. Large photographs were received showing the crossing in detail and the surrounding area. Testimony concerning the number of trains, cars and trucks using the crossing each day was introduced. Indeed, an expert gave his opinion that the crossing was dangerous. The jury apparently rejected any contention that the condition of the crossing proximately caused the accident. In these circumstances, the bit of proffered evidence rejected by the court, if admissible, cannot be deemed to have affected the substantial rights of the appellants. NRCP 61. The jury had abundant evidence before it upon which to decide whether the crossing, as it existed, was maintained with reasonable care in the light of conditions there present, Southern Pacific Co. v. Harris, 80 Nev. 426, 395 P.2d 767 (1964), and whether the condition thereof caused the tragic occurrence.
4. The remaining assignment of error regarding the admission of certain evidence is unsupported by authority in either the appellants' brief or oral argument and will not be considered.
Affirmed.
In Los Angeles & S.L.R. Co. v. Umbaugh, 61 Nev. 214, 123 P.2d 224 (1941), this court in substance held a jury was properly instructed that a railroad could kill an 11-year-old girl with impunity, if she failed to keep a lookout as the car in which she was riding approached a railroad crossing. However, we long ago repudiated that view of a passenger's duties. In Duffy v. Flynn, 72 Nev. 278, 302 P.2d 967 (1956), we held evidence that a passenger was sleeping did not constitute sufficient evidence of contributory negligence to support a verdict adverse to him. Later, in Otterbeck v. Lamb, 85 Nev. 456, 456 P.2d 855 (1969), we expressly endorsed what is certainly now the virtually uniform rule concerning the duties of an automobile passenger, saying:
85 Nev. at 461--462, 456 P.2d at 859.
1. Appellants contend, first, that this being our law, the evidence was insufficient to justify the district court in submitting a question of their decedents' contributory negligence to the jury. The majority really do not meet this contention. Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that must be proved. NRCP 9(c). Here, it is questionable that the defendant ever proved more than that appellants' decedents were unwatchful for, and oblivious to, impending danger--i.e. that they were acting in accord with their rights as passengers in a motor vehicle.
In Van Pelt v. Carte, 209 Cal.App.2d 764, 26 Cal.Rptr. 182 (1962), upon which we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Cas. Co. v. Propane Sales & Service, Inc.
...79 Nev. 453, 460, 386 P.2d 733 (1963); Prell Hotel Corp. v. Antonacci, 86 Nev. 390, 392, 469 P.2d 399 (1970); Wood v. Southern Pacific Co., 88 Nev. 527, 501 P.2d 652 (1972). The case was not particularly complicated. The jury was instructed as to the meaning of negligence and ordinary care,......
-
Ross v. Giacomo
...the trial court as to any of the alternative theories of liability or defense requires remand for another trial. Wood v. Southern Pacific Co., 88 Nev. 527, 501 P.2d 652 (1972); Otterbeck v. Lamb, 85 Nev. 456, 456 P.2d 855 (1969); Lightenburger v. Gordon, 81 Nev. 553, 579, 407 P.2d 728, 743 ......
-
Skender v. Brunsonbuilt Constr. & Dev. Co.
...268 Conn. 244, 842 A.2d 1100, 1107 (2004)). 22. Id. 23. Tavaglione, 17 Cal.Rptr.2d 608, 847 P.2d at 580. 24. Wood v. Southern Pacific Co., 88 Nev. 527, 501 P.2d 652 (1972). 25. Id. at 529, 501 P.2d at 653 (citing Otterbeck v. Lamb, 85 Nev. 456, 463, 456 P.2d 855, 860 (1969); Lightenburger v......
- Breckenridge v. Andrews, 6773