Chapter XXIII: Section VIII: Contributory Culpable Conduct of Plaintiff (3)

An analytical examination of the adjudged cases upon this subject will
demonstrate the correctness of the above analysis, and, in addition,
establish the soundness and technical accuracy announced in Davies
_v._ Mann, _supra_. This case has been criticised most severely ... by
courts of high authority, but these courts have utterly and entirely
failed to appreciate the base upon which the principle is bottomed,
and in repudiating the principle do so upon the idea that Davies _v._
Mann establishes the much-abused comparative negligence doctrine, a
doctrine repudiated by this court, but established in this state by
Laws 1910, ch. 135, p. 125. (But this statute has no reference to the
instant case because passed subsequent to the injuries complained of.)
In order for the injured party’s negligence to bar recovery, all of
the authorities hold that it must be the proximate cause; otherwise,
it is not contributory. Now, when it is fully understood that the
negligence of the injured party must be the proximate cause in order
to bar the remedy (and, as said above, all authorities everywhere,
ancient and modern, so affirm), the principle announced in Davies _v._
Mann must, from necessity, be the correct and true rule. If the
proximate and immediate cause of the injury—the _causa causans_—is the
controlling and determining factor in ascertaining whether the injured
party has the right to recover or whether the injuring party is not
liable, then it must follow, as night the day, that the party who has
the last opportunity to avoid the injury is the one upon whom the
blame shall fall. To express the idea differently: If the injured
party’s negligence be remote, and not proximate, he can recover
against the party who is guilty of negligence proximately contributing
or causing the injury. The North Carolina courts have perhaps more
satisfactorily and more clearly elucidated this question than have any
opinions that have come under the writer’s eye. In Smith _v._ N. & S.
R. R. Co., 114 N. C. 728, 19 S. E. 863, 923, 25 L. R. A. 287, it is
said that the rule in Davies _v._ Mann simply furnishes a means for
ascertaining whether the plaintiff’s negligence is a remote or
proximate cause of the injury; that, before the introduction of this
rule, any negligence on the part of the plaintiff, which in any degree
contributes to the injury, was judicially treated as the proximate
cause, and constituted contributory negligence which barred recovery.
The same is clearly stated in Nashua Iron & Steel Co. _v._ W. & N. R.
R. Co., 62 N. H. 159, 163, _et seq._ The antecedent negligence of the
injured party, having been thus relegated to the position of a
condition or remote cause of the accident, it cannot be regarded as
contributory, since it is well established that negligence, in order
to be contributory, must be at least one of the proximate causes.[208]

LORD O’BRIEN, C. J., IN BUTTERLY _v._ MAYOR OF DROGHEDA
[1907] _2 Irish Reports, 134, 137._

LORD O’BRIEN, L. C. J.:—

The facts which give rise to the controversy we have to determine, in
this case, are comprised within a narrow compass. The plaintiff, on a
Saturday morning, was coming into the town of Drogheda in a car driven
by himself. Coming near the town he, as he alleged, was overtaken by
the horse and car of Mrs. Morgan. She desired to pass. He says he made
way for her, and, in doing so, ran against a heap of stones on the
road, and his car was upset and he was injured. It appears that there
were two heaps of stones on the road. They had been, immediately
before the collision, thrown on the road in order that they might be
spread on the road. The man who brought the load, and had thrown them
on the road, was a servant of the defendants. The intention was to
spread them immediately on the road. The man who brought them was in
fact, at the time of the accident, engaged in spreading the heap next
the town, some little distance from the heap where the accident
occurred. Now the first heap, where the accident occurred, was placed
on the road in such a position that there was between it and the right
side of the road a space of 12 feet, and between this heap and the
left side of the road, 6 feet. That is to say, on the right side there
was a space sufficient for two cars to pass simultaneously, and on the
left a space for one car to pass. The plaintiff’s case was that, Mrs.
Morgan overtaking him, he made room for her, pulled to the left, and
without any default of his, his car ran upon the heap and was
capsized. His case was that Mrs. Morgan caught him exactly where the
heap was, and, in endeavoring to avoid her, and without any default or
negligence on his part, the accident occurred. Now, three questions
were left to the jury:—

1. Were the defendants, by their workmen, guilty of negligence? Yes.

2. Was the plaintiff guilty of negligence? Yes.

And if so—

3. Could the defendants, by the exercise of ordinary care, have
avoided the consequence of the plaintiff’s negligence? Yes.

I have invariably refused, in these negligence cases, to leave
questions in this form to a jury. This formula appears to me
calculated to perplex and embarrass a jury. No doubt this formula is
used, and judges do their best to explain it, but I fear that when
juries take up the questions in the jury-room, the explanation has not
the desired effect. Chief Justice Monahan consistently refused to put
the questions in this shape to the jury. I have always tried these
cases on two questions: 1st, Were the defendants guilty of negligence?
and, 2d, if so, was the defendant’s negligence the real, direct, and
immediate cause of the misfortune? Now, the jury in the present case
answered the questions submitted to them in the way I have read. I am
of opinion that the answer to the question finding that the plaintiff
was guilty of negligence, determines the matter in favor of the
defendants. It is quite plain, in my opinion, that his negligence was
a direct contributory cause of the accident. It was a cause which
brought him on the heap of stones. Assuming that there was negligence
on the part of the defendants in having the stones there, still his
negligence must have contributed to his running up against them. He
either did not keep a sufficient lookout, or his unskilful driving
brought him on the stones. Getting on the stones, through negligence,
was at least a contributory cause of the accident. It directly
contributed to the accident. If there be two causes directly
contributing to the accident, one the negligence of the defendant and
the other the negligence of the plaintiff, the result is a verdict for
the defendant.

BRITISH COLUMBIA ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY _v._ LOACH
IN THE PRIVY COUNCIL, JULY 26, 1915.
_Reported in [1916] Appeal Cases, 719._

LORD SUMNER. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia in favor of the administrator of the estate of Benjamin Sands, who was run down at a level crossing by a car of the appellant railway company and was killed. One Hall took Sands with him in a cart, and they drove together on to the level crossing, and neither heard nor saw the approaching car till they were close to the rails and the car was nearly on them. There was plenty of light and there was no other traffic about. The verdict, though rather curiously expressed, clearly finds Sands guilty of negligence in not looking out to see that the road was clear. It was not suggested in argument that he was not under a duty to exercise reasonable care, or that there was not evidence for the jury that he had disregarded it. Hall, who escaped, said that they went “right on to the track,” when he heard Sands, who was sitting on his left, say “Oh,” and looking up saw the car about fifty yards off. He says he could then do nothing, and with a loaded wagon and horses going two or three miles an hour he probably could not. It does not seem to have been suggested that Sands could have done any good by trying to jump off the cart and clear the rails. The car knocked cart, horses, and men over, and ran some distance beyond the crossing before it could be stopped. It approached the crossing at from thirty-five to forty-five miles an hour. The driver saw the horses as they came into view from behind a shed at the crossing of the road and the railway, when they would be ten or twelve feet from the nearest rail, and he at once applied his brake. He was then 400 feet from the crossing. If the brake had been in good order it should have stopped the car in 300 feet. Apart from the fact that the car did not stop in time, but overran the crossing, there was evidence for the jury that the brake was defective and inefficient and that the car had come out in the morning with the brake in that condition. The jury found that the car was approaching at an excessive speed and should have been brought under complete control, and although they gave as their reason for saying so the presence of possible passengers at the station by the crossing, and not the possibility of vehicles being on the road, there can be no mistake in the matter, and their finding stands. It cannot be restricted, as the trial judge and the appellants sought to restrict it, to a finding that the speed was excessive for an ill-braked car, but not for a properly-braked car, or to a finding that there was no negligence except the “original” negligence of sending the car out ill-equipped in the morning.

Clearly if the deceased had not got on to the line he would have suffered no harm, in spite of the excessive speed and the defective brake, and if he had kept his eyes about him he would have perceived the approach of the car and would have kept out of mischief. If the matter stopped there, his administrator’s action must have failed, for he would certainly have been guilty of contributory negligence. He would have owed his death to his own fault, and whether his negligence was the sole cause or the cause jointly with the railway company’s negligence would not have mattered.

It was for the jury to decide which portions of the evidence were true, and, under proper direction, to draw their own inferences of fact from such evidence as they accepted. No complaint was made against the summing-up, and there has been no attempt to argue before their Lordships that there was not evidence for the jury on all points. If the jury accepted the facts above stated, as certainly they well might do, there was no further negligence on the part of Sands after he looked up and saw the car, and then there was nothing that he could do. There he was, in a position of extreme peril and by his own fault, but after that he was guilty of no fresh fault. The driver of the car, however, had seen the horses some perceptible time earlier, had duly applied his brakes, and if they had been effective he could, as the jury found, have pulled up in time. Indeed, he would have had 100 feet to spare. If the car was 150 feet off when Sands looked up and said “Oh,” then each had the other in view for fifty feet before the car reached the point at which it should have stopped. It was the motorman’s duty, on seeing the peril of Sands, to make a reasonable use of his brakes in order to avoid injuring him, although it was by his own negligence that Sands was in danger. Apparently he did his best as things then were, but partly the bad brake and partly the excessive speed, for both of which the appellants were responsible, prevented him from stopping, as he could otherwise have done. On these facts, which the jury were entitled to accept and appear to have accepted, only one conclusion is possible. What actually killed Sands was the negligence of the railway company, and not his own, though it was a close thing.

Some of the judges in the Courts below appear to have thought that because the equipment of the car with a defective brake was the original cause of the collision, and could not have been remedied after Sands got on the line, no account should be taken of it in considering the motorman’s failure to avoid the collision after he knew that Sands was in danger. “You cannot charge up the same negligence under different heads,” said Murphy, J., at the trial; “you cannot charge it up twice.” “On the question of ultimate negligence,” he observed, “that negligence must arise on the conditions as existing at the time of the accident. It would, of course, be absurd to say the company had any opportunity between the time that this rig appeared upon the track and the collision to remedy any defect in the brake. If there was such a defect I think it was original negligence and not what may possibly be termed ‘ultimate negligence.’”

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.

The 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 plaintiff, 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 apt 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]

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 affected 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.

This 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 known 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 is, 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 directly 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 harm 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, of 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 was 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]

GAHAGAN _v._ BOSTON & MAINE RAILROAD
SUPREME COURT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, DECEMBER, 1900.
_Reported in 70 New Hampshire Reports, 441._