Baltimore & O. R. v. Goodman
1926 U.S. App. LEXIS 2172, 10 F.2d 58 (1926)
Rule of Law:
A driver's duty of care at a railroad crossing, including looking and listening, is subject to 'modifying circumstances' or 'accidental diversion of attention,' meaning contributory negligence is not always a matter of law; furthermore, railroad companies must consider off-right-of-way obstructions that increase crossing danger.
Facts:
- Nathan Goodman was driving a truck eastwardly on a public highway in an unincorporated village in Montgomery County, Ohio.
- A railroad train was running in a southwesterly direction.
- Goodman reduced the speed of his truck from 10-12 mph to 5-6 mph when about 40 feet from the crossing.
- The view of the tracks north of the crossing for drivers approaching from the west was obscured by buildings and other obstructions, including a tool shed on the right of way and a store 24 feet from the west track.
- Due to the obstructions, Goodman could not have seen the approaching train beyond the tool shed until his truck was less than 20-24 feet from the west rail.
- The train was traveling at approximately 60 miles an hour.
- The engineer stated he was maintaining a lookout but did not see Goodman's truck until the moment of collision.
- A collision occurred at the grade crossing, resulting in Nathan Goodman's death.
Procedural Posture:
- Nathan Goodman's estate (plaintiff) sued the railroad company (defendant) in a trial court for damages for the wrongful death of Nathan Goodman.
- The trial court submitted the issues of negligence (of the railroad) and contributory negligence (of Goodman) to the jury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.
- The trial court rendered judgment based on the jury's verdict.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver's failure to see an approaching train at a railroad crossing, even when potentially visible, constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law if the view is obscured by off-right-of-way obstructions and there might be modifying circumstances or accidental diversion of attention, thereby precluding recovery for damages?
Opinions:
Majority - Moorman, Circuit Judge
No, a driver's failure to see an approaching train at a railroad crossing does not necessarily constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law, especially when there are obscured views or other modifying circumstances. The court affirmed that Goodman was required to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent person, including using his faculties of sight and hearing, and this imposed a duty to look and listen effectively. However, the court distinguished previous cases that applied this rule more rigidly, preferring instead to adhere to precedents that allow for "modifying circumstances, or for accidental diversion of the attention, to which the most prudent and careful are sometimes subject." This meant that even if Goodman could have seen the train at 16-18 feet from the track, the court could not hold him guilty of negligence as a matter of law. Furthermore, the court held that train operatives are required to take into consideration obstructions not on the railroad's right of way if such obstructions render the crossing more dangerous than it otherwise would be, thus making it not an error to refuse a jury charge that would have allowed the railway company to ignore such dangers. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.
Analysis:
This case is significant for refining the application of the contributory negligence doctrine in railroad crossing accidents, particularly where visibility is impaired. It underscores that the duty to 'look and listen' is not absolute and can be mitigated by context-specific factors, shifting the determination of contributory negligence from a matter of law to a question of fact for the jury. By requiring railway companies to consider off-right-of-way obstructions, the ruling expands the scope of a railroad's duty of care, potentially leading to increased safety measures at crossings with limited visibility. This makes it harder for defendants to argue contributory negligence as an automatic bar to recovery in such scenarios.
