Wright v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co.
427 S.E.2d 724 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The operator of a motor vehicle has a duty to look and listen for trains with reasonable care at a railroad crossing, and the more dangerous the crossing, the greater the vigilance required. A driver who fails to take reasonable precautions for their own safety at a known dangerous crossing is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, precluding recovery.
Facts:
- Riley E. Wright operated a tandem dump truck with a solid dump body that blocked his rear view.
- Wright was thoroughly familiar with the Maddox Street railroad crossing, having lived nearby for ten years and having crossed it nine times in the two days preceding the accident.
- The crossing was at an acute angle to the road, which, combined with the truck's length, severely limited a driver's view north along the track without making a wide turn.
- A Norfolk and Western Railway Company (N & W) train approached the crossing at 34 mph with its headlight on, bell ringing, and whistle sounding.
- Wright stopped his truck behind another vehicle, and after it cleared the tracks, he proceeded slowly onto the crossing.
- The right-side window of Wright's truck cab was closed, and it was presumed his air conditioner and radio were operating.
- The train's engine struck the truck in the center of its right side when the engine was less than ten feet from the truck.
Procedural Posture:
- Riley E. Wright’s guardians filed a negligence action against Norfolk and Western Railway Company (N & W) in a Virginia trial court.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for $4 million.
- The defendant, N & W, filed a post-trial motion to set the verdict aside.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion, set aside the jury verdict, and entered judgment for N & W.
- The plaintiffs appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
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 who is thoroughly familiar with a dangerous railroad crossing and drives onto the tracks directly in front of an oncoming train guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Compton
Yes. A driver who drives onto a known dangerous railroad crossing directly in front of an oncoming train is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. A railroad track is a proclamation of danger, requiring a vehicle operator to look and listen at a time and place where both will be effective. The greater the danger at a crossing, the greater the vigilance required. Here, Wright was intimately familiar with the crossing and its hazards, including the limited visibility caused by the crossing's angle and his truck's configuration. Despite the train's audible and visible warnings, Wright drove from a position of safety directly into its path. He failed to take simple precautions like opening his window to listen or making a wider turn to improve his line of sight. By driving blindly onto the grade crossing without taking precautions for his own safety, his negligence precludes recovery.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the stringent standard of care imposed on drivers at railroad crossings under the doctrine of contributory negligence. It illustrates that even when a plaintiff can establish a defendant's negligence (e.g., maintaining an 'ultrahazardous' crossing), the plaintiff's own failure to exercise a heightened degree of vigilance commensurate with the known danger can serve as a complete bar to recovery. The decision emphasizes that a driver's familiarity with a crossing increases, rather than lessens, their duty of care. This holding solidifies the principle that the driver, not the train, has the last clear chance to avoid a collision at a grade crossing.
Unlock the full brief for Wright v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co.