Carpenter v. Kurn
1941 Mo. LEXIS 587, 348 Mo. 1132, 157 S.W.2d 213 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Oklahoma's last clear chance doctrine, a plaintiff's continuing contributory negligence does not bar recovery if the defendant discovered the plaintiff's position of peril and had the final opportunity to prevent the injury. Experimental evidence is admissible to shed light on an event so long as it was conducted under conditions substantially similar to the original transaction.
Facts:
- Reuben Carpenter was sitting on the east rail of the appellants' railroad track near Henryetta, Oklahoma.
- An approaching train operated by the appellants ran over and killed Carpenter.
- Following the accident, witnesses Sherman Gipson and Luther Houk conducted tests on the same track to determine the distance at which an object could be identified as a person.
- During these tests, the person on the track was in the same position and dressed the same as Carpenter had been.
- The conditions for the test were otherwise the same as the day of the accident, except the observers were standing on the ground rather than in the cab of a moving locomotive.
Procedural Posture:
- Reuben Carpenter's widow (respondent) sued the railroad (appellants) for wrongful death in the Circuit Court of Barry County, Missouri, a state trial court.
- The first trial resulted in a jury verdict of $18,000 for the respondent.
- The appellants appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, which reversed the judgment for an error in a jury instruction and remanded the case for a new trial.
- On a change of venue, the case was transferred to the Circuit Court of Henry County, Missouri.
- A second jury trial resulted in a verdict of $20,000 for the respondent.
- The appellants appealed the second judgment to the Missouri Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Oklahoma law, does a deceased's continuing contributory negligence, such as being asleep or intoxicated on a railroad track, bar recovery under the last clear chance doctrine, and is experimental evidence regarding visibility admissible when conducted under conditions that are only substantially, not identically, similar to the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - Tipton, P. J.
No, a plaintiff's continuing negligence does not bar recovery under the last clear chance doctrine, and the experimental evidence was admissible. The court reasoned that the purpose of the last clear chance doctrine is to create an exception to the contributory negligence rule, allowing recovery when a defendant fails to avoid an injury after discovering the plaintiff's peril. To instruct the jury that the deceased's 'continuing duty' to exercise care barred recovery would 'deny the application of the last clear chance doctrine.' Regarding the experimental evidence, the court held that evidence is admissible if the experiment was made under 'circumstances similar, or approximately similar' to the original event. Any dissimilarity, such as the observers being on foot instead of in a moving train cab, goes to the weight of the evidence for the jury to consider, not to its admissibility, especially where testimony suggested vision was comparable in both situations. The court affirmed the judgment but found the damages excessive, ordering a remittitur of $5,000.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the last clear chance doctrine as a significant exception to contributory negligence, clarifying that the doctrine can apply even when a plaintiff's negligence is concurrent with the defendant's. It establishes that the key element is the defendant's opportunity to act after discovering the peril, not the cessation of the plaintiff's negligence. The ruling also affirms a flexible standard for the admissibility of experimental evidence, prioritizing its potential to inform the jury over a rigid requirement for identical conditions. This lowers the bar for introducing such evidence, allowing parties to use practical demonstrations to support their claims about what was possible or perceivable during an event.
