Fuller v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.
56 So. 783 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the doctrine of the 'last clear chance,' a defendant may be liable for injuring a contributorily negligent plaintiff if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the injury through the exercise of reasonable care. A statutory presumption of negligence against the defendant can be used to establish that the defendant's failure to act was the proximate cause of the injury.
Facts:
- A private dirt road, long used by the community and maintained by the Illinois Central Railroad Company, crossed the company's railroad tracks.
- Mr. S. A. Fuller, an elderly man, habitually used this crossing to travel between his home and farm.
- The railroad company placed a six-to-seven-foot-high pile of cross-ties on its right of way, seventeen feet from the track, which obstructed the view of trains approaching from the west.
- On the evening of December 2, 1909, Fuller was driving his one-horse wagon slowly across the tracks.
- Fuller did not stop, look, or listen for a train before crossing and kept his head facing forward.
- An Illinois Central train, running late and at a high speed of 35-40 mph, approached from the west on a track that was straight for at least 660 feet before the crossing.
- The train crew had an unobstructed view of anyone who had passed the pile of cross-ties.
- The train sounded a whistle for a nearby station 900 feet away but gave no other warning until two short blasts immediately before colliding with Fuller's wagon, killing him.
Procedural Posture:
- The children of S. A. Fuller sued the Illinois Central Railroad Company in the trial court for the wrongful death of their father.
- The defendant railroad company pleaded not guilty and raised the affirmative defense of contributory negligence.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the conclusion of the plaintiffs' evidence, the defendant made a motion to exclude all evidence from the jury.
- The trial court sustained the defendant's motion and gave a peremptory instruction to the jury to find for the defendant.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the state's highest 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:
Does a plaintiff's contributory negligence bar recovery as a matter of law when a state statute establishes that proof of injury by a train is prima facie evidence of the railroad's negligence, and the defendant may have had the last clear chance to avoid the accident?
Opinions:
Majority - McLain, J.
No. A plaintiff’s contributory negligence does not automatically bar recovery if the defendant had the last clear chance to avoid the injury, as the defendant's negligence is then considered the proximate cause. Although Fuller was admittedly negligent for failing to stop, look, and listen, his negligence may have been a remote cause rather than the proximate cause of the accident. The court adopted the 'last clear chance' doctrine, originating from Davies v. Mann, which holds that the party with the last clear opportunity to avoid an accident, notwithstanding the opponent's negligence, is solely responsible. Furthermore, a Mississippi statute makes proof of injury by a running train prima facie evidence of the railroad's negligence. This statutory presumption applies even in cases of contributory negligence and shifts the burden to the railroad to prove it did everything reasonably possible to avoid the accident. Here, the evidence that the crew had a long, clear view of Fuller but did nothing to stop, slow down, or provide a timely warning until the last second failed to rebut this presumption, meaning the issue should have been decided by a jury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'last clear chance' doctrine as a critical exception to the harsh common law rule of contributory negligence, which would otherwise completely bar a plaintiff's recovery. By linking this doctrine to a state statute creating a presumption of negligence, the court provides plaintiffs a powerful procedural tool. The case establishes that a defendant cannot simply rely on the plaintiff's fault to escape liability if the defendant failed to seize a final opportunity to prevent the harm. This places a significant burden on defendants, particularly common carriers like railroads, to demonstrate that they took all reasonable measures to avoid an accident, even when faced with a negligent victim.
Unlock the full brief for Fuller v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.