Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans R. Co.
147 So. 2d 646, 243 La. 829 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's negligence is not actionable unless the plaintiff proves that the negligence was a cause in fact of the harm. To establish cause in fact, the plaintiff must show that it is more probable than not that the harm would have been averted but for the defendant's negligent conduct.
Facts:
- Tanner Perkins was a passenger in a Dodge automobile driven by Joe Foreman on Eddy Street in Vinton, Louisiana.
- As Foreman's vehicle approached a railroad crossing, a large warehouse on the northwest corner of the intersection obstructed the view of the tracks to the west.
- A 113-car freight train, operated by The Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company, was approaching the same crossing from the west.
- The railroad had a self-imposed speed limit of 25 miles per hour in Vinton, but the train was traveling at 37 miles per hour.
- The train's headlight was on, its bell was ringing, and its whistle was blowing; the automatic crossing signals (a swinging red light and bell) were also operating.
- The train crew saw the automobile emerge from behind the warehouse, shouted a warning, and the engineer immediately applied the emergency brakes.
- The train struck the automobile, killing both Perkins and Foreman.
- It was conceded by all parties that the driver of the automobile, Joe Foreman, was negligent in driving onto the tracks.
Procedural Posture:
- The widow of Tanner Perkins (plaintiff) filed a tort action against The Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company (defendant) in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- The district court found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages.
- The defendant railroad appealed the judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the district court's decision.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the defendant railroad's negligence in operating its train above the speed limit a cause in fact of the fatal collision, when the evidence does not show that the collision would have been avoided had the train been traveling at the proper speed?
Opinions:
Majority - Sanders, Justice.
No. The excessive speed of the train was not a cause in fact of the fatal collision. For negligence to be actionable, it must be a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, meaning the collision would not have occurred without it. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the harm was more likely than not caused by the defendant's tortious conduct. Here, the plaintiff failed to establish the speed of the automobile or the distance it needed to clear the tracks. Without such evidence, a conclusion that the collision would have been averted at the slower, legal speed is pure conjecture. The record suggests the accident would have occurred irrespective of the train's excessive speed, meaning the speed was not a substantial factor.
Dissenting - Hamlin, Justice
Yes. The railroad's overspeeding was a proximate cause of the accident. Given the hazardous, blind nature of the crossing, the train's speed of 37 miles per hour was negligent and a proximate cause of the collision. The dissent argues that even the company's self-imposed speed limit of 25 miles per hour would have been excessive under the dangerous circumstances of this particular intersection.
Analysis:
This case provides a clear articulation of the 'cause in fact' element of negligence, often referred to as 'but-for' causation. It establishes that a plaintiff cannot prevail merely by proving the defendant breached a duty of care; there must be a direct causal link between that specific breach and the injury. The court's refusal to speculate on what might have happened underscores the plaintiff's evidentiary burden. This precedent reinforces that a defendant's negligence is not legally cognizable if the same harm would have occurred regardless, thereby preventing liability from being imposed based on conjecture.
Unlock the full brief for Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans R. Co.