Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co.
Unknown (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver approaching a railroad crossing where the view is obstructed is contributorily negligent as a matter of law if they fail to take precautions beyond stopping, looking, and listening from within their vehicle, such as getting out to obtain a clear view before proceeding.
Facts:
- The appellant, Pokora, was a grocer who regularly purchased ice from an ice plant located on the northeast corner of an urban railroad crossing in Springfield.
- On the morning of August 17, 1929, Pokora drove his truck to the crossing, which had four sets of tracks.
- A string of boxcars was parked on the easternmost track, beginning 42 to 48 feet north of the street, which obstructed Pokora's view of the main track to the north.
- A loud ice-scoring machine at the plant was operating, making it difficult to hear an approaching train.
- Pokora stopped his truck 10 to 15 feet from the first track, looked and listened, but did not hear or see the train.
- Keeping his engine running, Pokora drove onto the main track, where his truck was struck by a southbound passenger train traveling at 25-30 mph without sounding its bell or whistle.
- Pokora was familiar with the crossing and knew that a train usually passed around that time in the morning.
- He also knew that the crossing watchman did not begin his shift until 7 a.m., which was after the time of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant sued the appellee, Wabash Railway Co., in federal trial court to recover for injuries from a train-truck collision.
- At the conclusion of the evidence at trial, the court granted the railway company's motion for a peremptory instruction (directed verdict).
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant railway company.
- The appellant appealed the judgment to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a driver contributorily negligent as a matter of law if, after stopping at an obstructed railroad crossing, he proceeds onto the tracks without taking further precautions beyond looking and listening from his vehicle, when his senses are impaired by physical obstructions and ambient noise?
Opinions:
Majority - Sparks, Circuit Judge.
Yes. A driver is contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to take sufficient precautions at an obstructed crossing. The court applied the standard from Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman, which holds that when a driver's view at a crossing is obscured, they must take extraordinary care to ensure no train is approaching. If a driver cannot be certain from their vehicle, they have a duty to stop and get out to look. The court reasoned that since the appellant's view was blocked by boxcars and his hearing was impaired by machinery and his own engine, merely stopping and looking from inside his truck was insufficient. By relying on not hearing a signal and taking no further precautions, he proceeded at his own risk, and his negligence bars recovery regardless of the railroad's failure to sound a warning.
Dissenting - Alschuler, Circuit Judge
No. The question of the driver's contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. The dissent argues that the strict Goodman rule is inapplicable to a busy, urban crossing with multiple tracks and obstructions like this one. Stopping on the first track to get a better view would have been dangerous in itself, as the boxcars could have moved. Furthermore, the suggestion to get out of the vehicle and walk to the track to look is impractical and potentially more dangerous in a complex urban environment. Given that the railroad was negligent in speeding and failing to provide a warning, and that Pokora did stop, look, and listen, a jury should determine whether his actions were reasonable under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision represents a rigid and unforgiving application of the contributory negligence standard established in Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Goodman. By treating the driver's duty of care as a fixed standard of conduct to be decided by a judge, it effectively removes the question of reasonableness from the jury in cases involving obstructed railroad crossings. This ruling makes it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to recover in such accidents, as any failure to take every possible precaution, including getting out of the vehicle, constitutes contributory negligence as a matter of law. This specific decision was ultimately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co. (1934), rejected this rigid 'stop, get out, and look' rule as impractical and established a more flexible standard of care based on what a reasonably prudent person would do under the circumstances.
