PERKINS V. TEXAS AND NEW ORLEANS RY. CO.
Sup. Ct. of La., 243 La. 829, 147, So.2d 646 (1962)
NATURE OF THE CASE: This Texas (D) appealed from a judgment affirming the judgment of the
trial court awarding damages to Perkins (P) in a negligence action. P, the 67-year-old widow
of Tanner Perkins, seeks damages for the death of her husband in the collision of an
automobile, in which he was riding, and a train of D. The district court awarded damages.
The Court of Appeal affirmed.
FACTS: A 113-car freight train pulled by four diesel engines was traveling east. A Dodge
automobile was driven by Joe Foreman with Tanner Perkins as a guest passenger was nearing
the railroad crossing where a warehouse obstructed the view to the west of an automobile
driver approaching the railroad crossing from the north on Eddy Street. It likewise
obstructed the view to the north of trainmen approaching the crossing from the west. Having
previously served on this route, the engineer and brakeman were aware of this obstruction. D
had installed at the crossing an automatic signal device consisting of a swinging red light
and a bell. At the time of the accident, this signal was operating. A standard Louisiana
railroad stop sign and an intersection stop sign were also located at the crossing. The
train approached the intersection with its headlight burning, its bell ringing, and its
whistle blowing. The fireman estimated that the train was approximately 60 feet from the
crossing when the automobile emerged from behind the warehouse. The brakeman, however,
estimated that the train was 30 to 40 feet from the crossing at the time the automobile came
into view. Both crewmen immediately shouted a warning to the engineer, who applied the
emergency brakes. The train struck the right side of the automobile and carried it
approximately 1,250 feet. The two occupants were inside the automobile when it came to rest.
Both were killed. The speed of the automobile in which Tanner Perkins was riding was
variously estimated from 3-4 miles per hour to 20-25 miles per hour. Both P and D concede in
their pleadings that Joe Foreman, the driver of the automobile, was negligent in driving
upon the track in front of the train and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the
death of Tanner Perkins. It is conceded that D's safety regulations imposed a speed limit of
25 miles per hour on trains in the town of Vinton. P has conceded in this Court that this
self-imposed speed limit was a safe speed at the crossing. The train was in fact traveling
at a speed of 37 miles per hour. The train could not have stopped even if it had been going
25 m.p.h. The violation by trainmen of the railroad's own speed regulations adopted in the
interest of safety is evidence of negligence. The trainmen were negligent in operating the
train 12 miles per hour in excess of the speed limit. The district court awarded damages.
The court of appeals affirmed that award. D appealed. D contends that the excessive speed of
the train was not a proximate cause of the collision for the reason that the accident would
not have been averted even had the train been traveling at the prescribed speed of 25 miles
per hour. P contends that the speed of the train constituted a 'proximate, direct and
contributing cause' of the accident.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment