Schofield v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.
8 F. 488 (1881)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A railroad company's negligence in failing to provide an audible warning signal does not relieve a traveler from their independent duty to exercise ordinary care by looking and listening for an approaching train before crossing the tracks.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was familiar with the railroad crossing and had often passed over it.
- A large sign over the crossing explicitly warned travelers to 'look out for the cars.'
- The highway and railroad were nearly level, giving the plaintiff an unobstructed view of the track for at least 600 feet before the crossing.
- For a distance of 70 rods from the depot to the crossing, the plaintiff had a clear view of the track.
- The train that struck the plaintiff was an unscheduled, special train.
- The train was traveling at an unusual and dangerous rate of speed.
- The train did not stop at the nearby depot as trains usually, but not always, did.
- The train's engineer did not blow the whistle or ring the bell to signal its approach to the crossing.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant railroad company in federal court to recover for injuries.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- After the plaintiff presented his evidence, the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to find for the defendant, arguing the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
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 railroad company's negligence in operating a train at high speed and failing to provide a signal absolve a traveler, who has an unobstructed view, of their contributory negligence for failing to look for an approaching train before crossing the tracks?
Opinions:
Majority - McCrary, C. J.
No. A railroad company's negligence does not excuse a traveler from their own duty to take ordinary precautions for their safety. Both parties are charged with the mutual duty of keeping a careful lookout for danger, and the degree of diligence required is that which a prudent person would exercise under the circumstances. The plaintiff's failure to look for a train, when he had a clear and unobstructed view, constitutes contributory negligence that bars his recovery. The fact that the train was a special, was moving at high speed, or failed to give a signal does not excuse the plaintiff from the fundamental duty to use his own senses to detect danger. Citing Railroad Co. v. Houston, the court affirmed that negligence by the company's employees is 'no excuse for negligence on her part. She was bound to listen and to look, before attempting to cross the railroad track, in order to avoid an approaching train, and not to walk carelessly into a place of possible danger.' Because the plaintiff could have seen the train and avoided the collision had he simply looked, he is considered the author of his own misfortune.
Analysis:
This opinion rigidly enforces the doctrine of contributory negligence in the context of railroad crossing accidents. It establishes that a traveler's duty to 'look and listen' is an independent obligation that is not excused by the railroad's own negligent acts, such as failing to provide a warning signal. This creates a high bar for plaintiffs, as any failure on their part to take basic precautions for their own safety can completely bar recovery, regardless of the defendant's fault. The decision solidifies a strict standard of care for individuals approaching railroad tracks, making it difficult to succeed in a lawsuit if they did not actively use their senses to detect danger.
