Part 1 — CHAPTER II NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE (continued 9)

In the Court of Appeal Macdonald, C. J. A., delivering a dissentient judgment in favor of the present appellants, said: “Where one party negligently approaches a point of danger, and the other party, with like obligation to take care, negligently approaches the same point of danger, if there arises a situation which could be saved by one and not by the other, and the former then negligently fail to use the means in his power to save it, and injury is caused to the latter, that failure is designated ultimate negligence, in the sense of being the proximate cause of the injury. In this case it is sought to carry forward, as it were, an anterior negligent omission of the defendants, though continuing, it is true, up to the time of the occurrence, and to assign to it the whole blame for the occurrence, although by no effort of the defendants or their servants could the situation at that stage have been saved.”

So, too, McPhillips, J. A., also dissenting, said: “Upon the evidence, whether it was because of defective brakes or any of the acts of negligence found against the defendants, none of them were acts of negligence arising after the act of contributory negligence of the deceased, and cannot be held to be acts of negligence which, notwithstanding the later negligence of the deceased, warrant judgment going for the plaintiff.... The motorman after he saw the vehicle could not have stopped the car ... therefore, as nothing could be then done by the motorman to remedy the ineffective brake, the want of care of the deceased was the direct and effective contributory cause of the accident resulting in his death.”

These considerations were again urged at their Lordships’ bar under somewhat different forms. It was said (1) that the negligence relied on as an answer to contributory negligence must be a new negligence, the initial negligence which founded the cause of action being spent and disposed of by the contributory negligence. Further, it was said (2) that if the defendants’ negligence continued up to the moment of the collision, so did the deceased’s contributory negligence, and that this series, so to speak, of replications and rebutters finally merged in the accident without the deceased ever having been freed from the legal consequence of his own negligence having contributed to it.

305The last point fails because it does not correspond with the fact. The consequences of the deceased’s contributory negligence continued, it is true, but, after he had looked, there was no more negligence, for there was nothing to be done, and, as it is put in the classic judgment in Tuff v. Warman, (1858) 5 C. B. (N. S.) 573, 585, his contributory negligence will not disentitle him to recover “if the defendant might by the exercise of care on his part have avoided the consequences of the neglect or carelessness of the plaintiff.”

As to the former point, there seems to be some ambiguity in the statement. It may be convenient to use a phraseology which has been current for some time in the Canadian Courts, especially in Ontario, though it is not precise. The negligence which the plaintiff proves to launch his case is called “primary” or “original” negligence. The defendant may answer that by proving against the plaintiff “contributory negligence.” If the defendant fails to avoid the consequences of that contributory negligence and so brings about the injury, which he could and ought to have avoided, this is called “ultimate” or “resultant” negligence. The opinion has been several times expressed, in various forms, that “original” negligence and “ultimate” negligence are mutually exclusive, and that conduct which has once been relied on to prove the first cannot in any shape constitute proof of the second.

Here lies the ambiguity. If the “primary” negligent act is done and over, if it is separated from the injury by the intervention of the plaintiff’s own negligence, then no doubt it is not the “ultimate” negligence in the sense of directly causing the injury. If, however, the same conduct which constituted the primary negligence is repeated or continued, and is the reason why the defendant does not avoid the consequences of the plaintiff’s negligence at and after the time when the duty to do so arises, why should it not be also the “ultimate” negligence which makes the defendant liable?

This matter was much discussed in Brenner v. Toronto Ry. Co., 13 Ont. L. R. 423, when Anglin, J., delivered a very valuable judgment in the Divisional Court. The decision of the Divisional Court was reversed on appeal, 15 Ont. L. R. 195, (1908) 40 Can. S. C. R. 540, but on other grounds, and in their comments on the decision of the Divisional Court, Duff, J., in the Supreme Court, and also Chancellor Boyd in Rice v. Toronto Ry. Co., (1910) 22 Ont. L. R. 446, 450, and Hunter, C. J., in Snow v. Crow’s Nest Pass Coal Co., (1907) 13 B. C. Rep. 145, 155, seem to have missed the point to which Anglin, J., had specially addressed himself.

The facts of that case were closely similar to those in the present appeal, and it was much relied on in argument in the court below. Anglin, J., following the decision in Scott v. Dublin and Wicklow Ry. Co., (1861) 11 Ir. C. L. Rep. 377, 394, observed as follows, 13 Ont. L. R. 437, 439, 440: “Again, the duty of the defendants to the 306plaintiff, breach of which would constitute ‘ultimate’ negligence, only arose when her danger was or should have been apparent. Prior to that moment there was an abstract obligation incumbent upon them to have their car equipped with efficient emergency appliances ready and in condition to meet the requirements of such an occasion. Had an occasion for the use of emergency appliances not arisen, failure to fulfil that obligation would have given rise to no cause of action. Upon the emergency arising, that abstract obligation became a concrete duty owing to the plaintiff to avoid the consequences of her negligence by the exercise of ordinary care.... Up to that moment there was no such breach of duty to the plaintiff. In that sense the failure of the defendants to avoid the mischief, though the result of an antecedent want of care, was negligence which occurred, in the sense of becoming operative, immediately after the duty, in the breach of which it consisted, arose. It effectively intervened between the negligence of the plaintiff and the happening of the casualty. But there is a class of cases where a situation of imminent peril has been created, either by the joint negligence of both plaintiff and defendant, or it may be, by that of the plaintiff alone, in which, after the danger is or should be apparent, there is a period of time, of some perceptible duration, during which both or either may endeavor to avert the impending catastrophe.... If, notwithstanding the difficulties of the situation, efforts to avoid injury duly made would have been successful, but for some self-created incapacity which rendered such efforts inefficacious, the negligence that produced such a state of disability is not merely part of the inducing causes—a remote cause or a cause merely sine qua non—it is, in very truth, the efficient, the proximate, the decisive cause of the incapacity, and therefore of the mischief.... Negligence of a defendant incapacitating him from taking due care to avoid the consequences of the plaintiff’s negligence, may, in some cases, though anterior in point of time to the plaintiff’s negligence, constitute ‘ultimate’ negligence, rendering the defendant liable notwithstanding a finding of contributory negligence of the plaintiff....”

Their Lordships are of opinion that, on the facts of the present case, the above observations apply and are correct. Were it otherwise the defendant company would be in a better position, when they had supplied a bad brake but a good motorman, than when the motorman was careless but the brake efficient. If the superintendent engineer sent out the car in the morning with a defective brake, which, on seeing Sands, the motorman strove to apply, they would not be liable, but if the motorman failed to apply the brake, which, if applied, would have averted the accident, they would be liable.

The whole law of negligence in accident cases is now very well settled, and, beyond the difficulty of explaining it to a jury in terms of the decided cases, its application is plain enough. Many persons are 307apt to think that, in a case of contributory negligence like the present, the injured man deserved to be hurt, but the question is not one of desert or the lack of it, but of the cause legally responsible for the injury. However, when once the steps are followed the jury can see what they have to do, for the good sense of the rules is apparent. The inquiry is a judicial inquiry. It does not always follow the historical method and begin at the beginning. Very often it is more convenient to begin at the end, that is at the accident, and work back along the line of events which led up to it. The object of the inquiry is to fix upon some wrong-doer the responsibility for the wrongful act which has caused the damage. It is in search not merely of a causal agency but of the responsible agent. When that has been done, it is not necessary to pursue the matter into its origins; for judicial purposes they are remote. Till that has been done there may be a considerable sequence of physical events, and even of acts of responsible human beings, between the damage done and the conduct which is tortious and is its cause. It is surprising how many epithets eminent judges have applied to the cause, which has to be ascertained for this judicial purpose of determining liability, and how many more to other acts and incidents, which for this purpose are not the cause at all. “Efficient or effective cause,” “real cause,” “proximate cause,” “direct cause,” “decisive cause,” “immediate cause,” “causa causans,” on the one hand, as against, on the other, “causa sine qua non,” “occasional cause,” “remote cause,” “contributory cause,” “inducing cause,” “condition,” and so on. No doubt in the particular cases in which they occur they were thought to be useful or they would not have been used, but the repetition of terms without examination in other cases has often led to confusion, and it might be better, after pointing out that the inquiry is an investigation into responsibility, to be content with speaking of the cause of the injury simply and without qualification.

In the present case their Lordships are clearly of opinion that, under proper direction, it was for the jury to find the facts and to determine the responsibility, and that upon the answers which they returned, reasonably construed, the responsibility for the accident was upon the appellants solely, because, whether Sands got in the way of the car with or without negligence on his part, the appellants could and ought to have avoided the consequences of that negligence, and failed to do so, not by any combination of negligence on the part of Sands with their own, but solely by the negligence of their servants in sending out the car with a brake whose inefficiency operated to cause the collision at the last moment, and in running the car at an excessive speed, which required a perfectly efficient brake to arrest it. Their Lordships will accordingly humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.^[209]

308 NEHRING v. THE CONNECTICUT COMPANY Supreme Court, Connecticut, July 19, 1912. Reported in 86 Connecticut Reports, 109.

Prentice, J. It is clear and unquestioned that there was evidence, justifying its submission to the jury, tending to establish the defendant’s negligence in the premises directly contributing to produce the fatal injury which the plaintiff’s intestate suffered. The verdict for the defendant was directed upon the ground that the plaintiff had failed to present evidence, sufficient to go to the jury, tending to establish the intestate’s freedom from contributory negligence. Plaintiff’s counsel in his brief formally takes issue with this conclusion of the court, asserting that the evidence was such as entitled the plaintiff to go to the jury upon the question of the intestate’s negligence. It is apparent, however, that little reliance is placed upon this particular claim, and that the contention that the court erred must fail unless the appeal which is made to the so-called doctrine of “the last clear chance,” otherwise known as supervening or intervening negligence, is well made. This appeal is urged with vigor, so that the plaintiff’s main contention, which alone calls for serious consideration, is that, notwithstanding the intestate’s failure to use ordinary care, the defendant is liable through the operation of the doctrine referred to, which, it is said, the court disregarded.

The notion appears to be more or less prevalent that this so-called doctrine is a discovery of recent years, that it embodies a new legal principle, and that this principle is one which invades the domain formerly assigned to contributory negligence, and sets limitations upon the operation of this latter doctrine so long and so deeply imbedded in English and American jurisprudence. This is by no means true as respects either the age or the character and scope of the principle which it embodies. The names by which it has come to be known are indeed of recent origin, and perhaps its present vogue and the misconception which prevails as to its true place in the law of negligence are due in part to its thus being given an independent status in the terminology of the law. In fact, the principle is no modern discovery. It runs back to the famous “Donkey Case” of Davies v. Mann, 10 Mees. & W. 546, decided in 1842. It was distinctly recognized by this court in 1858 in Isbell v. New York & N. H. R. Co., 27 Conn. 393. It was then not only recognized, but its true place in the law was assigned to it. It was shown to be no independent principle operating by the side of, and possibly overstepping the bounds of, other principles, but merely a logical and inevitable corollary of the long accepted doctrine of actionable negligence as 309affected by contributory negligence. The definition of its place, which was made in the clear-cut language of Judge Ellsworth, inexorably forbade that it could by possibility run counter in its application to the contributory negligence rule. This fundamental principle we have steadily adhered to. Smith v. Connecticut Ry. & Ltg. Co., 80 Conn. 268, 270, 67 Atl. 888; Elliott v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 83 Conn. 320, 322, 76 Atl. 298, 84 Conn. 444, 447, 80 Atl. 283.

There are, indeed, cases which give countenance to a different view upon this latter subject. But their dicta, oftentimes, not to say generally, uttered without an apparent comprehension of their logical consequence, would create havoc with the law, and leave it guideless, or with two conflicting guides. A sober second thought is, however, fast correcting this mistake, so that there has already come to be a general concurrence of the well-considered authorities in the view which has been taken in this jurisdiction.

The contributory negligence rule has no practical application save in cases where the defendant has been guilty of actionable negligence. It proceeds upon the theory that whenever a person injured has contributed essentially to his injury by his own negligent conduct, the law will not give him redress, even against another who may have been directly instrumental in producing the result. To furnish a basis for its application there must have been a concurrence of negligent conduct. This negligent conduct, furthermore, must have been of such a character and so related to the result as to entitle it to be considered an efficient or proximate cause of it. If there is a failure to use due care on the part of either party at such a time, in such a way or in such a relation to the result that it cannot fairly be regarded as an efficient or proximate cause, the law will take no note of it. Causa proxima, non remota, spectatur.

It thus logically follows that, although a plaintiff may have failed to exercise reasonable care in creating a condition, or in some other way, which cannot be fairly said to have been the proximate cause of the injuries of which he complains, the contributory negligence rule cannot be invoked against him. The question with respect to negligent conduct on the part of a person injured through the negligence of another, as affecting the former’s right to recover, thus becomes resolved in every case into one as to whether or not that conduct of his was a proximate cause of the injury. If it was, then the contributory negligence rule is applicable, and the plaintiff will by its operation be barred from recovery. If it was not, that rule has no pertinence to the situation, since there was no concurrence of negligence, without which there can be no contributory negligence in the legal sense. It is conduct of the latter kind—that is, conduct careless in itself, but not connected with the injury as a proximate cause of it—to which the so-called doctrine of “the last clear chance” relates, and that doctrine embraces within its purview such conduct only.

310This being so, it may well be questioned whether the doctrine deserves a classification and a name as of an independent principle. But if, for convenience sake or other reason, it is to be dignified in that way, it is apparent that there is no manner of inconsistency between it and the contributory-negligence rule, and that the domain of the latter rule is in no way invaded or narrowed by a full recognition of it. It follows that the decisive question in each case, where a plaintiff injured is found to have been at fault in the premises from his failure to exercise the required degree of care, resolves itself into one as to whether that fault was or was not a proximate cause of the injury, and that the answer to that question will infallibly determine whether or not it will bar a recovery.

Thus far we have had the way marked out for us by the clearly defined doctrine of former opinions. But the proposition just stated, which is thus supported, while sufficient for the determination of many cases and furnishing a helpful guide in most others, does not resolve all the difficulties which may be encountered. It leaves the question open as to when negligent conduct in a person injured in his person or property is to be regarded as a proximate cause of the injury. How close must be the causal connection between the negligence and the injury? It is at this point that any real uncertainty or trouble arises under the doctrine of this jurisdiction.

The negligence referred to in the claimed rule is, of course, that which the law so denominates, to wit, want of due care which is a proximate cause of harm. The proposition is not dealing with a lack of due care which the law ignores. When it speaks of the negligence ceasing, negligence in the legal sense is meant. It may in a given sense cease in the sense that prudent conduct takes its place. It may for all legal purposes cease through the relegation of it, as events progress, to the domain of remote cause. In other words, it ceases when, and only when, the conditions of contributory negligence disappear. The claimed test thus solves no problems. It only brings one back, in doubtful cases, to the inquiry whether the plaintiff’s conduct, lacking in due care, was of such a character, or so related to the injury, that it ought to be regarded as a proximate cause of it, as the real test which must be applied.

The impossibility of framing any general abstract statement which will suffice to resolve the difficulties which may be presented under varying conditions, or to anticipate all such conditions, is apparent. We shall undertake no such task. There are, however, certain sets of conditions, of not infrequent occurrence, concerning which general conclusions may be made safely and profitably.

There is, for instance, the occasional case where, after the plaintiff’s peril, to which he has carelessly exposed himself or his property, becomes 311known to the defendant, the latter introduces into the situation a new and independent act of negligence without which there would have been no injury. Such was the case of Smith v. Connecticut Ry. & Ltg. Co., 80 Conn. 268, 270, 67 Atl. 888, and it was there held, in accordance with sound reason, that this new negligence was to be regarded as the sole proximate cause of the accident which ensued. The rule for that type of case is thus furnished.

Cases of another class occasionally arise, where it is disclosed that the plaintiff has by his lack of care placed himself in a position of danger from which he either cannot, or cannot reasonably, escape after the discovery of his danger. Here, again, there can be no hesitation in saying, that if the defendant, after his discovery that the plaintiff is in the situation described, fails to use reasonable care—and that is care proportioned to the danger—to save him from harm, and harm results from such failure, the defendant’s want of care will be regarded as the sole proximate cause, and the plaintiff’s a remote cause only.

The situation just stated is not infrequently changed, in that means of escape were open to the plaintiff by the exercise of reasonable care, but it was apparent to the defendant, in season to have avoided the doing of harm by the exercise of due care, that the plaintiff would not avail himself of them. Here it is assumed that the situation of exposure had been created and established by the plaintiff’s action before the period of time began within which the defendant, acting reasonably, might have saved him, and that within that period the plaintiff did nothing to create or materially change that situation by active conduct which was not marked by reasonable care. Under the assumption he remains passive, in so far at least as negligent action is concerned, and can be regarded as careless only in this that he did not awake to his surroundings and do what he reasonably could to avoid the threatened consequences of a situation which he had already negligently brought about. In such cases the humane, and, to our mind, the better reason, all things considered, leads to the conclusion to which our former opinions, already cited, commit us, and which a large number of cases elsewhere approve, that the want of care on the part of the plaintiff will be regarded as a remote and not a proximate cause.

Another important variation is oftentimes introduced into the situation, in that the plaintiff continued as an active agent in producing the conditions under which his injury was received down to the time of its occurrence, or at least until it was too late for the defendant, with knowledge of his peril, to have saved him by the exercise of reasonable care under the circumstances. This variation imports into the situation an important factor. The plaintiff, during the period named, is not merely passively permitting an already fixed condition to remain unchanged. He is an actor upon the scene. He 312is, by acts of his volition, bringing into the situation which confronts the defendant changed conditions and, in the fullest sense, co-operating with the latter in bringing about the ultimate result. In such case his conduct must be regarded as a concurring efficient cause. It is, in the fullest sense, a proximate and not a remote one, making his negligence contributory.

It is said, however, that there are cases, and undoubtedly there are, where it is reasonably apparent to the one who inflicts the injury that the injured one is careless of his safety, and that, in continuance of his carelessness, he is about to place himself in a position of danger, which he subsequently does, and where the former thereafter, having a reasonable opportunity to save him from harm, fails to do so; and it is contended that in such cases the conduct of the injured person should be regarded as a remote cause only of the resulting harm. We are unable to discover any logical reason for such a conclusion, or any place at which a practical or certain line of division can be drawn between that careless conduct of a man, playing some part in an injury to him, which the law will regard as having that causal connection with the injury which makes it a proximate cause, and that careless conduct which will not be so regarded, if the contention under consideration is to be approved. The conduct of the man who inflicts the injury under such general conditions may indeed be such that it is open to the charge of wilfulness or wantonness. If so, the case is not one of negligence, and the defense of contributory negligence would not be available. Rowen v. New York, N. Y. & H. R. Co., 59 Conn. 364, 371, 21 Atl. 1073. If the conduct is not wilful or wanton, it is negligent only. Thus treated, it forms one factor of negligence in the situation. The plaintiff’s want of care is another factor, and it certainly has something substantial to do in bringing about the result reached. Upon what theory or foundation in reason it can be said that, under the circumstances assumed, it is not an efficient cause of that result co-operating concurrently with the other cause to be found in the other party’s negligence, we are unable to discover. The causal connection is plain to be seen, and the act of causation is that of a positive act of volition. The two actors upon the scene owe precisely the same duty to be reasonably careful. Dexter v. McCready, 54 Conn. 171, 174, 5 Atl. 855. Neither occupies in that regard a superior position, and the one who suffers can claim no precedence over his fellow actor or at the hands of the law. To say that no matter if one be negligent in going forward into danger, or in creating new conditions or complicating them, the law will protect him and cast upon the other party the responsibility for the result, is to ignore the fundamental principle of contributory negligence and bring the law upon that subject into hopeless confusion, and merit for it the condemnation which Thompson has so forcibly expressed. 1 Thompson on Negligence, §§ 230, 233. The well-considered cases which have 313directly dealt with this subject agree with us, we think, in our view that active continuing negligence of the kind assumed is to be regarded as contributory in the legal sense. Butler v. Rockland, T. & C. Street Ry. Co., 99 Me. 149, 160, 58 Atl. 775; Murphy v. Deane, 101 Mass. 455, 465; Dyerson v. Union Pacific R. Co., 74 Kan. 528, 87 Pac. 680; Little v. Superior Rapid Transit Ry. Co., 88 Wis. 402, 409, 60 N. W. 705; Green v. Los Angeles Terminal Ry. Co., 143 Cal. 31, 47, 76 Pac. 719; Olson v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 84 Minn. 258, 87 N. W. 843.

We have thus far dealt with cases in which actual knowledge on the part of the defendant of the plaintiff’s peril enters into the assumption of facts. Suppose, however, that such knowledge is not established, but facts are shown from which it is claimed that the defendant ought in the exercise of due care to have known of it. What shall be said of such a situation?

In so far as imputed or constructive knowledge may be embraced in the assumption, the simple answer is to be found in the legal principle that full and adequate means of knowledge, present to a person when he acts, are, under ordinary circumstances, treated as the equivalent of knowledge. Post v. Clark, 35 Conn. 339, 342.

But our assumption reaches outside of the domain of knowledge, either actual or constructive. It suggests, in the use of the phrase “ought in the exercise of due care to have known,” frequently met with in the books, the existence of a duty to exercise due care to acquire knowledge, and the query is, whether the law recognizes the existence of such a duty to the extent of making it a foundation for responsibility for conduct akin to that which flows from conduct with actual or constructive knowledge.

We have frequently held that the character of one’s conduct in respect to care is to be determined in view of what he should have known as well as of what he did in fact know. Snow v. Coe Brass Mfg. Co., 80 Conn. 63, 66 Atl. 881. In these cases the question has been as to one’s duty for his own self-protection. That duty, according to established principles, involves the making of reasonable use of one’s senses under the penalty of forfeiture of all claim for redress in the event that harm results. Popke v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 81 Conn. 724, 71 Atl. 1098.

But how about a duty of acquiring knowledge, owed to others for their safety, which, not being performed, will furnish a basis of liability? In Elliott v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 83 Conn. 320, 76 Atl. 298, we recognized that such a duty might exist. That case involved the conduct of a locomotive engineer operating his engine at a grade-crossing, and we approved a charge which gave to the knowledge which the engineer, under the conditions, ought, in the use of due care, to have had, the same effect as actual knowledge. The duty imposed upon him was one to be watchful in order that needless 314harm might not come to persons who might be using the crossing, from the dangerous instrument of his calling. The duty was one toward others, which the circumstances and conditions must be regarded as fairly creating. For a like reason a similar duty rests upon other persons and under other conditions, in greater or lesser measure. Whether it exists, and the extent of it, depends upon the circumstances of each situation. A circumstance of chief significance, perhaps, is one which concerns the character of that about which the person is engaged in respect to its being calculated, under the conditions, to work injury to others. And so it is that a locomotive engineer, a motorman of a trolley-car running in a highway, or a chauffeur driving an automobile, is under a duty to be watchful for the protection of others which another man under other conditions would not owe to his fellows. Unreasonableness in one’s conduct, as a foundation for responsibility to others, cannot justly be established upon the basis of knowledge not possessed. It can with propriety be predicated upon negligence in not having acquired more knowledge. Negligence in this respect, as in all others, implies the existence of a duty to make use of means of knowledge. This duty must be found in the circumstances, and caution must be exercised in order that it, with its consequences, be not raised where the circumstances do not fairly impose it, or be extended beyond the limits which the circumstances fairly justify.^[210]

George W. Wheeler, J. (dissenting). Just prior to the accident the defendant’s car was being negligently operated. Assuming the decedent walked either diagonally toward and upon the track, or close to it, without using his senses to learn of the approaching car, and that there was no excuse for his failure, he was negligent. If the accident occurred while decedent and defendant were negligent and decedent’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident, and there was nothing more to the case, there could be no recovery. But if the defendant’s motorman saw, or could by the exercise of reasonable care have seen, the decedent either approaching the track and about to place himself in danger, or walking so near the track as to be in danger, apparently heedless and unconscious of his peril, he owed to the deceased the duty of warning him and of observing such precautions as might avoid running into him. This was the case before the jury. We hold knowledge and the means of knowledge of one having a duty to know equivalent. Elliott v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 83 Conn. 320, 76 Atl. 298. This duty originated after the negligence of the motorman and of the deceased, and after the latter’s peril and his unconsciousness of it might have been discovered by the motorman. If its performance would have avoided the injury to the deceased, its breach was the proximate cause of the accident, and his negligence in placing himself in the place of peril a condition, or the remote cause, 315of it. Of course, if he had not gone upon the track he would not have been injured; if he was negligent in going upon the track without using his senses, that was not the proximate cause of the accident, but the failure of the defendant to avoid the accident after it had the opportunity of avoidance and after it knew of the decedent’s peril and his unconsciousness of it.

In each case of discovered peril caused by one’s negligence the question is, did the defendant have the opportunity after such discovery, and was it his duty, to have avoided the accident? Whether the conduct of the motorman was gross negligence, or ordinary negligence, the breach of duty was the same in kind, though differing in degree. If one walks upon a railway track drunk, or in a reverie, or otherwise careless; or if one stands or lies on or so near the railway track as to be in danger and unconscious of it; or if one is in a position of peril through his own negligence from which he is unable to extricate himself, the person knowing or having the means and the duty to know of his presence owes him the duty of avoiding injuring him. One who is negligently in a position of danger and unconscious of it is in no different situation than if he were incapable of extricating himself from his peril.

The few authorities which hold the antecedent negligence of the deceased in getting into peril is concurrent with the defendant’s negligence so as to bar a recovery, make meaningless the rule of duty compelling the defendant to use reasonable care to avoid the accident after discovery of the peril. A legal duty without a corresponding obligation is an anomaly. When we relieve the motorman of liability for failure to avoid an accident, he may operate his car at a negligent speed, without having it under control, without keeping an outlook, without giving warning of approach, and neither having nor using the ordinary instrumentalities of equipment for avoiding injury to travellers, and so long as his conduct is not gross negligence it carries with it no liability.

The opinion of the court classifies in five groups the several kinds of cases which have been thought to be within the “last clear chance” doctrine. In group one, the defendant, instead of doing his duty, does something which is a new act of negligence. In group two, the peril is one from which the plaintiff cannot, or cannot reasonably, extricate himself. Each group supports a recovery. In group three, means of escape were open to the plaintiff down to the accident, but he remained unconscious of his peril. The opinion holds that if the plaintiff remains passive after exposing himself to peril and does nothing to materially change that condition, there may be a recovery. But in group four, assuming the same facts as in group three, the court holds that if the plaintiff after exposing himself to peril, instead of permitting the fixed condition to remain unchanged continues as an active agent in producing the conditions under which the injury 316was received down to its occurrence, or until it was too late for the defendant to avoid the accident, there can be no recovery. In group five, the defendant knows, or ought to know, that the injured one is careless and is about to expose himself to danger of which he is unconscious, and after such knowledge has the opportunity to avoid injury to him, and in such case the court holds there can be no recovery.

We have attempted to show that the breach of duty of the defendant in each of these several groups is the same, and was a new act of negligence of the defendant, viz.: the failure of the defendant to avoid injuring the plaintiff after he knew of his peril when he was either unconscious of it or incapable of extricating himself from it, and that this breach was the proximate cause of the accident while the plaintiff’s prior negligence was the remote cause.

The distinction between active and passive negligence made in groups three and four, is new to our law, as well as to the law of negligence generally prevailing in this country and in England. On analysis it does not seem logical. A is crossing a trolley track when hailed by a friend; he stops upon the track to talk and negligently fails to use his senses to discover an approaching car. The motorman could have seen A in his place of peril, unconscious of his danger, and in time, with the exercise of reasonable care to have avoided injuring him; instead he drives on his car and kills A. The opinion would hold A negligent in being upon the track without using his senses to keep out of the way of the oncoming car, but that as he remained passive and did nothing to change his situation of peril after the motorman had the opportunity to have avoided the accident, he may recover. But if A, instead of stopping on the track had gone on his way across or upon the track and been struck, his negligence would have been active and continued to the accident and would have been concurrent with that of the motorman. It must be conceded that the breach of the motorman’s duty would have been the same in each case: a failure to use reasonable care to avoid the accident. We see no reason why it should be available in the one case and not in the other. In neither case has the plaintiff’s negligence changed. It never became passive or nonexistent. It remained to the time of the accident. It ceased, in a legal sense, to be a proximate cause of the accident. A was relieved of its consequences because the negligence of the motorman in failing to avoid the accident intervened and became its proximate cause. If this distinction holds, and A be upon a trolley track intoxicated and asleep, his negligence is passive; if awake and walking his negligence is active.^[211]

317 GAHAGAN v. BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD Supreme Court, New Hampshire, December, 1900. Reported in 70 New Hampshire Reports, 441.

Plaintiff was struck by a train while attempting to use a crossing provided by the Railroad Company for persons having business with a manufacturing company. From a point twenty-two feet from the nearest rails there was an unobstructed view of the track in the direction from which the train came. The accident happened near noon on a bright and clear day. Generally the engine bell was rung, while the whistle was sometimes sounded, for this crossing. Plaintiff knew it was usual to ring the bell. In this instance a danger whistle was sounded at, or immediately before, the time when plaintiff was struck; but there was evidence tending to prove that no other warning of the approach of the train was given. Plaintiff testified that he did not look or listen for an approaching train; and that he did not look because he expected to hear the bell or whistle if one was coming. The engineer testified that, when about one hundred and fifty to two hundred feet from the crossing, he saw plaintiff approaching the track; and that he kept watch of plaintiff until he got within a few feet of the track, when he whistled.^[212]

A nonsuit was ordered, subject to exception.

Parsons, J.... It is urged that the plaintiff relied upon the ringing of the bell, and that the failure to give the warning signals (of which there was some evidence which must here be taken to be true) excused him from the exercise of vigilance. Though the plaintiff testified that he did not look to see if a train was approaching because he expected to hear the whistle or bell if there was, it cannot be claimed that he was consciously at the time placing any reliance thereon, for he further testifies that he had no thought of a train coming and did not listen for the bell. As his counsel state in their brief, “There was no positive effort, no conscious ‘harking’ or ‘listening’ to ascertain if the train was coming.” But assuming that it might be found as a fact that he did rely on the awakening of his consciousness by the performance of the railroad’s duty of warning, the failure of the defendants to perform their duty did not release him from his. The obligation to use care was equally imposed upon each. If the defendants’ negligence excused the plaintiff from his duty of care, the plaintiff’s negligence with equal reason would excuse the defendants. If the plaintiff had the right to assume the defendants would perform their duty, and, relying thereon, approach the crossing without exercising care, the defendants had the right to assume that the plaintiff would perform his duty, and omit the warning of bell and whistle. The duty of care rested on each equally. If neither performed that 318duty both are in fault, and neither can recover of the other. The collision in this case resulted, it may be, because neither party performed their duty. If either had, there might and probably would have been no accident. The rights and liabilities of the parties consequent upon their acts resulting in the collision are not affected by the fact that subsequently one is plaintiff and the other defendant in a suit growing out of the collision. Their several responsibility is fixed at the time by their acts or failure to act. A suit by the engineer against Gahagan for personal injury resulting from the collision would present precisely the same legal question as that we now have. It would hardly be urged that the engineer was not guilty of contributory negligence in failing to ring the bell because he relied upon Gahagan’s performance of his duty of stopping and allowing the train to go by. The negligence of neither is an excuse for concurrent want of care in the other, because for an injury resulting from the concurrent negligence of both neither can recover. Nashua Iron and Steel Co. v. Railroad, 62 N. H. 159, 163.

The rule is laid down in Railroad Co. v. Houston, 95 U. S. 697, 702, also a crossing case, as follows: “The failure of the engineer to sound the whistle or ring the bell, if such were the fact, did not relieve the deceased from the necessity of taking ordinary precautions for her safety. Negligence of the company’s employees in these particulars was no excuse for negligence on her part.”

It is not claimed that after the plaintiff stepped upon the track almost immediately in front of the approaching train the defendants could have prevented the injury, or that the employees in charge of the train, when the danger thus became imminent, did not do all that could be done to prevent the collision. At any time before this the plaintiff could have avoided the collision. There was no moment when the defendants could, while the plaintiff could not, have prevented the injury. The plaintiff’s act in stepping upon the track, without precaution to ascertain whether he could safely do so, was the last act in point of time in the causation producing the injury. As there was no evidence upon which it could reasonably be found that the plaintiff’s action in this respect was the exercise of care, he cannot recover unless upon the evidence some negligent act or omission of the defendants’ employees could be found to be the sole proximate cause of the injury.

The plaintiff’s negligent occupation of the track did not authorize the defendants to run upon and injure him, if by care they could have avoided it. Ordinarily, the negligent act or omission which fails to avoid the consequences of the plaintiff’s negligence is the last act in time in the series leading to the injury. Such was the case in the cases cited; the negligent occupation of the track by the plaintiffs 319preceded the negligence of the defendants in failing to observe and guard against the danger so produced. But as ordinary care may require vigilance to guard against a dangerous situation reasonably to be apprehended, as well as actually imminent, it cannot always follow that the last negligent act in point of time is necessarily the proximate cause of the injury. If the engineer knew or ought to have known that the plaintiff’s negligence would place him upon the crossing when the train reached it, the engineer was equally bound to avoid the collision as if he saw the plaintiff actually on the track. The question is one of evidence merely. The mere fact that the person when first seen is on the track is not decisive. If a person on foot is seen crossing the track at such distance ahead that it could not reasonably be apprehended that the train would reach him in this position, the engineer would not be in fault for not preparing to avoid a danger not reasonably to be expected. In the present case there is evidence that when the plaintiff was first seen by the engineer the collision could have been prevented. If the engineer knew or ought to have known then that the plaintiff would be upon the crossing when the train reached it, and could have avoided the collision, his failure to do so is the proximate cause of the injury.

As there was evidence the collision might then have been prevented by him, the sole remaining question is whether upon the evidence reasonable men might find the engineer ought then to have foreseen the plaintiff’s negligence. The bare fact that the plaintiff was seen approaching the track is not sufficient to authorize such a finding. If it were, the rule heretofore laid down and found to be approved by the authorities and the reason of the case, that it is the duty of the highway traveller to stop and allow the train to pass, would be reversed. It would become the duty of the train to stop and wait for the person on foot to go by. This would be unreasonable, impracticable, and put an end to the modern system of rapid transportation demanded by the public, and to effectuate which railroads are authorized by the state.

“The company’s servants may ordinarily presume that a person apparently of full age and capacity, who is walking on the track at some distance before the engine, will leave it in time to save himself from harm; or if approaching the track, that he will stop if it becomes dangerous for him to cross it. This presumption will not be justified under some circumstances, as when the person who is on the track appears to be intoxicated, asleep, or otherwise off his guard.” Pierce R. R. 331; 2 Shearm. & Red. Neg. s. 483; Chicago, etc. R. R. v. Lee, 68 Ill. 576, 581; Terre Haute, etc. R. R. v. Graham, 46 Ind. 239, 245; Lake Shore, etc. R. R. v. Miller, 25 Mich. 274, 278, 280; Boyd v. Railway, 105 Mo. 371, 381, 382. The presumption is founded upon the general principle of right acting and the instinct of self-preservation. Huntress v. Railroad, 66 N. H. 185; Lyman v. Railroad, 66 N. H. 200; 2 Thomp. Neg. 1601.

320The case discloses no evidence apparent to the engineer taking the present case out of the rule.

Aside from the plaintiff’s own statement and the fact of the subsequent collision, the case contains no evidence that the plaintiff, when seen by the engineer approaching the crossing, was not alert to the situation, or tending to produce a belief that he would voluntarily rush into danger without care. Until he stepped upon the track his only danger consisted in the fact of his mental obliviousness to his duty of taking care. So defining his danger, the claim of his counsel, that if the engineer knew the plaintiff’s danger he could have avoided the injury and is in fault for not doing so, is sound; but to submit to the jury the question of fact whether the engineer ought to have known the status of the plaintiff’s mind in season to have prevented the accident, not only in the absence of evidentiary facts tending to prove such knowledge but in the face of all the facts open only to a contrary inference, would be a violation of the familiar and elementary rule that in judicial trials facts are to be found upon evidence, not conjecture. Deschenes v. Railroad, 69 N. H. 285.

The evidence upon which counsel mainly rely, tending to show that when seen by the engineer Gahagan’s face was not turned toward the train and that his appearance did not indicate whether he saw the train or not, does not tend to establish that he proposed to rush carelessly into known danger, or that he would go upon the track without care to ascertain if a train was approaching. That Gahagan knew the crossing, its danger, and his approach to it, was conceded. Hence, in the face of this admitted fact, although this evidence may have some tendency to prove the contrary, the jury could not find that Gahagan did not know he was approaching a place of danger, or that the engineer ought to have inferred a fact which it is conceded did not exist. As there is no evidence that the defendants ought to have known the plaintiff’s danger in season to have avoided the results of his negligence, they cannot be found guilty of negligence for not doing so.

Exceptions overruled.

Keith, P., in NORFOLK & W. R. CO. v. DEAN’S ADM’X (1907) 107 Virginia, 505, 506, 507, 513.

Keith, P. The Circuit Court ... rests the case solely upon the second count in the declaration, in which the case presented is that, after it became apparent to the crew in charge of defendant company’s train that intestate of plaintiff was on the track in front of the engine, that he was unconscious of his danger, and would take no measures to protect himself, the crew failed to use any measure to prevent the accident. Such being the issue to be determined, it is needless to consider so much of the evidence as relates to the use of 321the track as a public passway, or as to whether or not the person injured was a licensee or a trespasser. He was a human being, and when his dangerous position was seen and known, and that he himself was unconscious of his peril, and would take no measures for his own protection, it became the duty of the railroad company to do all that could be done consistent with its higher duties to others to save him from the consequences of his own act, regardless of whether he was guilty of contributory negligence or not. Seaboard & Roanoke R. Co. v. Joyner’s Adm’r, 92 Va. 355, 23 S. E. 773.

This being the narrow issue to be decided, it becomes necessary to consider the evidence bearing upon it with care....

[The learned judge then considered the testimony. He found that there was no failure of duty on the part of the train men; and he held that the demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained. He quoted, with approval, the following statements of the law.]

In N. & W. Ry. Co. v. Harman, 83 Va. 577, 8 S. E. 258, it is said that “if a person seen upon the track is an adult, and apparently in the possession of his or her faculties, the company has a right to presume that he will exercise his senses and remove himself from his dangerous position; and if he fails to do so, and is injured, the fault is his own, and there is, in the absence of wilful negligence on its part, no remedy against the company for the results of an injury brought upon him by his own recklessness.”

In Rangeley v. Southern Ry. Co., 95 Va. 715, 30 S. E. 386, it is said that a railroad company has the right to assume that a grown person seen on its track will get out of the way of an approaching train, and the company is not liable unless it is shown that after the company, in the exercise of ordinary care, could have discovered that he was not going to get off the track, it could have avoided the injury.

O’KEEFE, Adm’x, v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Supreme Court, Iowa, October 21, 1871. Reported in 32 Iowa Reports, 467.

Appeal from Polk District Court.

Action by an administratrix to recover damages for the death of her husband, Dennis O’Keefe, alleged to have been killed by being run over on the defendant’s road, through the negligence of the defendant’s agents and employees. Defence in denial, and also that the death was caused by the drunkenness and negligence of the plaintiff’s intestate. There was a jury trial, resulting in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1000. The defendant appeals.

Cole, J. [Omitting statement of evidence.] After the evidence was closed, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows: “If you are satisfied from the evidence that Dennis O’Keefe, plaintiff’s intestate, was, a short time before the alleged injury, in a state of intoxication; that in such condition he went upon defendant’s 322railroad and laid himself down upon the track, or fell down unable to support himself because of such intoxication; that remaining in that condition a passing train crushed one of his legs; that after the injury he was yet under the influence of intoxicating liquors drank before the injury; that the injured limb was amputated and death ensued, you will find for the defendant, unless you further find from a preponderance of the evidence that defendant or its agents had knowledge that he was thus lying in time to prevent the accident,” to which the court added, and then gave it, “or, could have known with the exercise of ordinary caution.” This modification was excepted to at the time, and is now assigned as error.

The well-established law of this state is, that in an action to recover damages for the negligent act of the defendant, the plaintiff will not be entitled to recover if his own negligence contributed directly to the injury. In other words, this court recognizes and applies the doctrine of “contributory negligence,” and not the doctrine of “comparative negligence.” The latter doctrine obtains only in Illinois and Georgia, while the former obtains in the other states, and also in the Federal courts. The modification complained of ignored the doctrine of contributory negligence, and substantially told the jury that plaintiff might recover without regard to his negligence, if the defendant could have prevented the injury with the exercise of ordinary caution. The doctrine of the modification goes even farther than that of comparative negligence; for, by the latter, a plaintiff can only recover when he shows the defendant’s negligence to have been greater, by comparison, than his, while by the modification the plaintiff might recover if the defendant did not exercise ordinary caution, although the plaintiff’s intestate may have been guilty of a much greater negligence in laying himself down, in a condition of intoxication, near to or upon the track. A similar modification was made to the second instruction. In each there was error.

Reversed.

PICKETT v. WILMINGTON & WELDON RAILROAD COMPANY Supreme Court, North Carolina, September Term, 1895. Reported in 117 North Carolina Reports, 616.

Avery, J.^[213] The most important question presented by the appeal is whether the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that if the plaintiff’s intestate deliberately laid down upon the track and either carelessly or intentionally fell asleep there, the defendant was not liable, unless the engineer actually saw that he was lying there in time, by the reasonable use of appliances at his command, to have stopped the train before it reached him.

323In Gunter v. Wicker, 85 N. C. 310, this court gave its sanction to the principle first distinctly formulated in Davies v. Mann, 10 M. & W. (Ex.) 545, that “Notwithstanding the previous negligence of the plaintiff, if at the time the injury was done it might have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence on the part of the defendant, an action will lie for damages.” This doctrine was subsequently approved in Saulter v. Steamship Co., 88 N. C. 123; Turrentine v. Railroad, 92 N. C. 638; Meredith v. Iron Co., 99 N. C. 576; Roberts v. Railroad, 88 N. C. 560; Farmer v. Railroad, Ibid. 564; Bullock v. Railroad, 105 N. C. 180; Wilson v. Railroad, 90 N. C. 69; Snowden v. Railroad, 95 N. C. 93; Carlton v. Railroad, 104 N. C. 365; Randall v. Railroad, 104 N. C. 108; Bullock v. Railroad, 105 N. C. 180, and it was repeatedly declared in those cases that it was negligence on the part of the engineer of a railway company to fail to exercise reasonable care in keeping a lookout not only for stock and obstructions but for apparently helpless or infirm human beings on the track, and that the failure to do so supervening after the negligence of another, where persons or animals were exposed to danger, would be deemed the proximate cause of any resulting injury.

[As to argument for defendant.] But the reasons and the authorities relied upon emanate generally from courts which hold that both persons and animals upon a track are trespassers and entitled to consideration only where actually seen in time to save them....

It cannot be denied that, in a number of the states which have adopted the doctrine of Davies v. Mann, it has also been held that both man and beast were trespassers when they went upon a railway track and except at public crossings or in towns it was not the duty of the engineer to exercise care in looking to his front with a view to the protection of either. Where the law does not impose the duty of watchfulness it follows that the failure to watch is not an omission, of duty intervening between the negligence of the plaintiff in exposing himself and the accident, unless he be actually seen in time to avert it. The negligence of the corporation grows out of omission of a legal duty and there can be no omission where there is no duty prescribed.

We are of opinion that, when by the exercise of ordinary care an engineer can see that a human being is lying apparently helpless from any cause on the track in front of his engine in time to stop the train by the use of the appliances at his command and without peril to the safety of persons on the train, the company is liable for any injury resulting from his failure to perform his duty. If it is the settled law of North Carolina (as we have shown) that it is the duty of an engineer on a moving train to maintain a reasonably vigilant outlook along the track in his front, then the failure to do so is an omission of a legal duty. If by the performance of that duty an accident might have been averted, notwithstanding the previous negligence of another, then, under the doctrine of Davies v. Mann, and Gunter v. Wicker,^[214] the breach of duty was the proximate cause of any injury growing out of such accident, and where it is a proximate cause the company is liable to respond in damages. Having adopted the principle that one whose duty it is to see does see, we must follow it to its logical results. The court committed no error of which the defendant could justly complain in stating the general rule which we have been discussing.

324 DYERSON v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY Supreme Court, Kansas, November 10, 1906. Reported in 74 Kansas Reports, 528.

Plaintiff sued for damages caused by being struck by the tender of an engine.

Plaintiff, an employee of the R. R. Co., had occasion to cross the track. As he was about to step upon the track, he was struck by the tender of a locomotive which was backing east at the rate of fifteen or twenty miles an hour without giving a signal of its approach and without keeping a lookout along the track. The track was straight for a quarter of a mile west. It was a clear day, and there was nothing to have prevented the plaintiff from seeing the engine and tender if he had looked.^[215]

At the trial, the court rendered judgment against plaintiff upon his petition and preliminary statement to the jury which disclosed the above facts. Plaintiff brought error.

Mason, J.

Finally it is contended in behalf of the plaintiff that, even admitting his own want of care to have been such as would ordinarily bar a recovery, still he had a right to submit to the jury the question whether the employees in charge of the engine by the use of reasonable diligence could have discovered his negligence in time to avert the accident, and that an affirmative answer would have entitled him to a verdict.

In a number of cases it has been held that if the engineer by the exercise of reasonable diligence could have learned that danger was imminent but did not do so, the liability of the company will be determined in all respects as though he had in fact become aware of it, the constructive knowledge being apparently deemed the equivalent of actual knowledge. It is difficult or impossible to reconcile the decisions upon this and related questions, or to derive from them any generally accepted statement either of principle or result. Many of them are collected and discussed in chapter ix of volume i of Thompson’s Commentaries on the Law of Negligence, especially in sections 222 to 247.

There seems, however, to be no sufficient reason why the mere fact that a defendant is negligent in failing to discover a plaintiff’s negligence, or his danger, should in and of itself exclude all consideration of contributory negligence. Take the not unusual situation of a train being negligently operated, let us say by being run at too high a speed and without proper signals of warning being given. Now, any one injured as a result of such negligence has prima facie a right to recover. But, if his own negligence has contributed to his injury, then ordinarily his right is barred. How is the situation altered if the railroad employees add to their negligence in regard to speed and signals the negligence of failing to keep a sufficient lookout? The negligence is of the same sort; and, if the contributory negligence of the person injured prevents a recovery when 325but the two elements of negligence are present, consistency requires that it should have the same effect although a third element is added. If in the present case the plaintiff was entitled to recover in spite of his own negligence it must be because the order of its occurrence with respect to that of the defendant made the latter the proximate cause of the injury. This indeed is his contention, and to support it reliance is placed upon the following text, which was quoted with approval in Railway Co. v. Arnold, 67 Kan. 260, 72 Pac. 857, and the substance of which is to be found also in volume xx of the American and English Encyclopædia of Law, at page 137:—

“And upon the principle that one will be charged with notice of that which by ordinary care he might have known, it is held that if either party to an action involving the questions of negligence and contributory negligence should, by the exercise of ordinary care, have discovered the negligence of the other, after its occurrence, in time to foresee and avoid its consequences, then such party is held to have notice; and his negligence in not discovering the negligence of the other, under such circumstances, is held the sole proximate cause of a following injury.” (7 A. & E. Encycl. of L. 387.)

This may be accepted as a correct statement of a principle of universal application, according with both reason and authority, provided the words “after its occurrence” be interpreted to mean after the person concerned had ceased to be negligent. The rule that under the circumstances stated the neglect of one party to discover the omission of the other is to be held to be the sole proximate cause of a resulting injury is not an arbitrary but a reasonable one. The test is, What wrongful conduct occasioning an injury was in operation at the very moment it occurred or became inevitable? If just before that climax only one party had the power to prevent the catastrophe, and he neglected to use it, the legal responsibility is his alone. If, however, each had such power, and each neglected to use it, then their negligence was concurrent and neither can recover against the other. As is said in the paragraph from which the foregoing quotation is made, “it is only when the negligence of one party is subsequent to that of the other that the rule can be invoked.” In a note printed in volume ii of the supplement to the American and English Encyclopædia of Law, at page 64, many recent cases are cited bearing on the subject, and it is said:—

“This so-called exception to the rule of contributory negligence (i. e., the doctrine of ‘the last clear chance’) will not be extended to cases where the plaintiff’s own negligence extended up to and actually contributed to the injury. To warrant its application there must have been some new breach of duty on the part of the defendant subsequent to the plaintiff’s negligence.”

In the present case it may be granted that the negligence of the plaintiff began when he walked between the track and the ice-box on the way to get the bucket, and that the employees in charge of the engine were themselves negligent in not discovering this negligence on his part and the peril to which it exposed him, and taking steps to protect him. But his negligence as well as theirs continued up to the moment of the accident, or until it could not possibly be averted. His opportunity to discover and avoid the danger was at least as good as theirs. His want of care existing as late as theirs was a concurring cause of his injury, and bars his recovery. This determination is entirely consistent with what Mr. Thompson in his work above cited has styled the “last clear chance” doctrine, as is obvious from a consideration of the terms in which it is stated. As originally announced it was thus phrased:—

326“The party who has the last opportunity of avoiding accident is not excused by the negligence of any one else. His negligence, and not that of the one first in fault, is the sole proximate cause of the injury.” (1 Shear. & Red. Law of Neg., 5th ed., § 99.)

Mr. Thompson rewords it as follows:—

“Where both parties are negligent, the one that had the last clear opportunity to avoid the accident, notwithstanding the negligence of the other, is solely responsible for it—his negligence being deemed the direct and proximate cause of it.” (1 Thomp. Com. Law Neg. § 240.)

Expressions are to be found in the reports seemingly at variance with the conclusion here reached, but for the most part the decisions holding a defendant liable for failure to discover and act upon the plaintiff’s negligence were made in cases which were in fact like Railway Co. v. Arnold, 67 Kan. 260, 72 Pac. 857, or were decided upon the theory that they fell within the same rule. There the plaintiff’s decedent while riding a bicycle was through his own fault run into by a street car; he clung to the fender, was carried some seventy-five feet, then fell under the wheels, and was killed. A judgment against the street-car company was upheld only upon the theory that after he had reached a position of danger from which he could not extricate himself—that is, after his negligence had ceased—the defendant’s employees were negligent in failing to discover his peril and stop the car.

In Robinson v. Cone, 22 Vt. 213, 54 Am. Dec. 67, the writer of the opinion said:—

“I should hesitate to say that if it appeared that the want of ordinary care on the part of the plaintiff, at the very time of the injury, contributed either to produce or to enhance the injury, he could recover; because it seems to me that is equivalent to saying that the plaintiff, by the exercise of ordinary care at the time, could have escaped the injury.” (Page 223.)

The principle thus intimated was embodied in a decision in French v. The Grand Trunk Railway Co., 76 Vt. 441, 58 Atl. 722, where it was said:—

“It is true that when a traveller has reached a point where he cannot help himself, cannot extricate himself, and vigilance on his part will not avert the injury, his negligence in reaching that position becomes the condition and not the proximate cause of the injury, and will not preclude a recovery; but it is equally true that if a traveller, when he reaches the point of collision, is in a situation to help himself, and by a vigilant use of his eyes, ears, and physical strength to extricate himself and avoid injury, his negligence at that point will prevent a recovery, notwithstanding the fact that the trainmen could have stopped the train in season to have avoided injuring him. In such a case the negligence of the plaintiff is concurrent with the negligence of the defendant, and the negligence of each is operative at the time of the accident. When negligence is concurrent and operative at the time of the collision, and contributes to it, there can be no recovery.” (Page 447.)

To the same effect are these extracts:—

[As to the rule holding the defendant liable notwithstanding the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.]

Of the same rule it was said in O’Brien v. McGlinchy, 68 Me. 552:

“This rule applies usually in cases where the plaintiff or his property is in some position of danger from a threatened contact with some agency under the control of the defendant when the plaintiff cannot and the defendant can prevent 327an injury.... But this principle would not govern where both parties are contemporaneously and actively in fault, and by their mutual carelessness an injury ensues to one or both of them.” (Pages 557, 558.)

In Smith v. Railroad, 114 N. C. 728, 19 S. E. 863, 25 L. R. A. 287, the general rule was thus concretely stated:—

“Applying the rule which we have stated to accidents upon railroad tracks, it may be illustrated as follows: First, there must be a duty imposed upon the engineer, as otherwise there can be no negligence to which the negligence of the injured party is to contribute. The duty under consideration is to keep a vigilant lookout ... in order to discover and avoid injury to persons who may be on the track and who are apparently in unconscious or helpless peril. When such a person is on the track and the engineer fails to discover him in time to avoid a collision, when he could have done so by the exercise of ordinary care, the engineer is guilty of negligence. The decisive negligence of the engineer is when he has reached that point when no effort on his part can avert the collision. Hence, if A, being on the track and after this decisive negligence, fails to look and listen and is in consequence run over and injured, his negligence is not concurrent merely but really subsequent to that of the engineer, and he cannot recover, as he and not the engineer has ‘the last clear opportunity of avoiding the accident.’ If, however, A is on the track ... and while there, and before the decisive negligence of the engineer, he by his own negligence becomes so entangled in the rails that he cannot extricate himself in time to avoid the collision, and his helpless condition could have been discovered had the engineer exercised ordinary care, then the negligence of A would be previous to that of the engineer, and the engineer’s negligence would be the proximate cause, he, and not A, having the last clear opportunity of avoiding the injury. The same result would follow in the case of a wagon negligently stalled, when no effort of the owner could remove it, and there are other cases to which the principle is applicable.” (Pages 755, 756.)

The principle running through these cases is reasonable and is consistent with the general rules that have met with practically universal acceptance. Applied to the facts of this case it requires an affirmance of the judgment.

All the Justices concurring.

Baker, J., IN CLEVELAND R. CO. v. KLEE (1900) 154 Indiana, 430, 434, 435.

Baker, J. It is alleged in the fifth paragraph: “That on or about the 22d day of June, 1894, this plaintiff, a child nine years of age, was on the said crossing of Georgia and Helen streets and upon said track of said defendant in said Georgia Street; and while in said position and place, the defendant through and by its said employees and servants, ran said locomotive against this plaintiff and negligently dragged this plaintiff without fault or negligence on his part, a long distance, to wit, two hundred feet; that the defendant knew that it had run its locomotive against this plaintiff at said crossing; and knew that it had knocked this plaintiff down in front of its said locomotive upon its said track; and knew that this plaintiff was dragging in front of said locomotive on said track; but that this defendant negligently failed to stop said locomotive before this plaintiff was injured, although by the exercise of due care and caution it could have stopped said locomotive before this plaintiff was injured; 328but negligently dragged this plaintiff as aforesaid, without fault or negligence on the part of this plaintiff, and negligently injured this plaintiff in his body, back, and limbs.” The injury for which compensation is sought in this paragraph was not sustained in the collision at the crossing, but was wholly inflicted after appellant knew that appellee was being dragged along the track in front of the engine. By the exercise of due care appellant could have stopped the engine before appellee was injured, but failed to do so. Appellee, after being struck and while being dragged along the track, was free from fault contributing to his injury. These allegations constitute a cause of action. Though the paragraph confesses, by not denying, that appellee was guilty of negligence in being upon the track, that negligence was only the remote condition, not the proximate cause, of the injury complained of; for the injury resulted, after the collision, entirely from occurrences in which it is alleged that appellant was negligent and appellee was not.

HOLMES v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY Supreme Court, Missouri, November 27, 1907. Reported in 207 Missouri Reports, 149.

Action by C. W. Holmes and wife to recover for the death of their child, F. G. Holmes. The child, eight years old, was struck and killed by a locomotive engine at the crossing of an avenue. Two points in conflict were, whether defendant was negligent, and whether the child was contributorily negligent.

The following instruction was given at plaintiff’s request: “(4) If the jury believe from the evidence that Freeborn G. Holmes was a boy of immature age, and had not the capacity of an adult, and that he exercised such care as ought reasonably to have been expected for one of his age and capacity, then he was not guilty of contributory negligence.”

To this instruction defendant excepted.

An instruction given at the request of defendant was, that, if the child failed to exercise such care and caution as an ordinarily prudent boy of his age and capacity should have exercised under the circumstances, and by reason thereof contributed to his own death, then your verdict must be for the defendant, regardless of all other facts in the case.

Verdict for plaintiff. Judgment for plaintiff in Circuit Court. Defendant appealed.^[216]

Valliant, J.... In the brief for defendant, pages 61 and 139, the idea is advanced that the only theory on which the plaintiffs’ judgment could be sustained would be that the defendant is liable for the consequences of the reckless conduct of the deceased child. That is a misconception of the theory on which the defendant’s liability rests. The defendant is liable only for its own negligence, and if its plea of contributory negligence is not sustained, still, it is not charged with the consequence of the child’s negligence; but it is only not excused thereby for the result of its own negligence. It is not always essential to a plaintiff’s recovery, in an action for tort, that the evidence should show that the accident was the result of the defendant’s negligence alone. A defendant 329may be liable if his negligence contributes with that of a third person to produce the injury complained of; in such case he is not held liable for the negligence of the third person, but only for his own negligence, without the contributing force of which the negligence of the third person would not have caused the injury. But the policy of the law is such that ordinarily a defendant guilty of negligence is relieved from the liability for his own conduct if the person injured was himself guilty of negligence that contributed to the result. On that theory the defendant’s act is none the less negligent, and he is none the less culpable, but the law will not allow a plaintiff to recover when he himself, or the person for whose injury he sues, was also guilty of negligence contributing with that of defendant to the result. There is reason and justice in that policy of the law; it is an admonition to every one to exercise due care for his own safety, and it authorizes another to presume that he will do so, and, so presuming, adjust his own conduct. But common experience tells us that a child may be too young and immature to observe the care necessary to his own preservation and therefore when a person comes in contact with such a child, if its youth and immaturity are obvious, he is chargeable with knowledge of that fact and he cannot indulge the presumption that the child will do what is necessary to avoid an impending danger. Therefore one seeing such a child in such a position is guilty of negligence if he does not take into account the fact that it is a child and regulate his own conduct accordingly.^[217] An act in relation to a person of mature years might be free from the imputation of negligence while an act of like character in view of a child would be blameworthy. Therefore when the law says to the defendant although the act of the deceased child contributed with your act to produce the result, yet, because of his youth and immaturity, he is not adjudged guilty of negligence, it does not charge the defendant with the consequence of the child’s conduct, but it only does not, for that reason, excuse him for its [his] own negligence.

If the defendant in such case had been guilty of no negligence there would have been no accident.

Judgment affirmed.

Gantt, C. J., and Burgess, Lamm, and Woodson, JJ., concur. Fox and Graves, JJ., dissent.