Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Goodman

Supreme Court of the United States · 1927 · Torts

Tortsnegligencestandard of carerailroad crossingHolmescontributory negligencedue carerailroad crossing

Facts

Nathan Goodman was driving an automobile truck eastward and was struck and killed by the defendant's train at a grade crossing in daylight. The train was traveling southwesterly at not less than sixty miles per hour, and Goodman was familiar with the crossing. According to the respondent, a section house obstructed his practical view of the track until he was near the crossing, and he had reduced his speed from ten or twelve miles per hour to five or six miles per hour at about forty feet from the crossing. The railroad argued that Goodman's own negligence caused his death.

Issue

Whether the evidence permitted recovery by Goodman's estate, or whether Goodman was negligent as a matter of law for entering the railroad crossing without taking sufficient precautions to determine whether a train was dangerously near.

Rule

When a driver approaches a railroad crossing, if he cannot otherwise be sure whether a train is dangerously near, he must stop and get out of his vehicle, though often it will be enough to stop and look. If he relies only on not hearing the train or a signal and takes no further precaution, he acts at his own risk. Although due care is generally left to the jury, courts should lay down the standard of conduct when that standard is clear.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Dayton, Ohio, Elena Ruiz drove a delivery van toward a grade crossing she used every week. A storage shed on private property blocked her view of the tracks until she was very near the first rail, and she rolled forward slowly while listening for a horn but never stopped; a train then struck the van.

If Elena's estate sues the railroad, which is the strongest argument for the railroad under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a driver entering a railroad crossing goes to a place of obvious danger. If the driver cannot otherwise be sure whether a train is dangerously near, the driver must stop and get out of the vehicle, though often stopping and looking will suffice. Reliance only on not hearing a train or signal is at the driver's own risk. Because the standard is clear, a court may treat the conduct as negligent as a matter of law.