Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.

Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors · Federal Courts

Federal Courtsrailroad crossingmotortruckcontributory negligencelook and listenvisible trainlast clear chanceset aside verdict

Facts

The plaintiff drove a motortruck along a private road that approached and then crossed the defendant railroad's double tracks at nearly a right angle. On a clear day, the train was visible for over one-sixth of a mile to the south, and from points in the road beginning 150 feet from the crossing it could be seen for upward of 400 feet. The plaintiff stopped and looked south at a point 150 feet from the crossing and saw no train, and he claimed he looked again shortly before entering the crossing and saw none. The train, traveling 20 to 30 miles per hour from the south, struck the truck when it reached the northbound track, injuring the plaintiff.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's own negligence barred recovery as a matter of law and whether the last-clear-chance doctrine nonetheless allowed recovery. More specifically, the question was whether the defendant had a later opportunity, after the plaintiff entered danger, to avoid the collision by reasonable care.

Rule

A driver approaching a railroad crossing must look before driving onto the crossing and must do so at a point sufficiently near the crossing to permit stopping before entering it. When the physical facts show that a train was plainly visible, a claim that the driver looked and did not see it will not avoid a finding of contributory negligence. The last-clear-chance doctrine does not apply unless the defendant, by reasonable care, could realize the plaintiff would enter danger in time and thereafter had an opportunity by reasonable care to avoid the collision.

🔒

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 Toledo, Marcus Hale drove a delivery van down a gravel access road toward a private railroad crossing. On a sunny afternoon, an oncoming train was visible for at least 500 feet from the final 120 feet of the approach, but Marcus stopped and looked only once from 140 feet away, then rolled forward without looking again and was struck as he entered the track.

If Marcus sues the railroad for his injuries, which is the strongest argument that his own negligence bars recovery?

Explanation. The governing rule is that a traveler approaching a railroad crossing must look before going onto the crossing and must do so from a point sufficiently near the crossing to permit stopping before entering it. A stop and observation made too far back is inadequate if a later effective observation was required. Where the physical facts show the train was plainly visible, the driver's claim that he looked earlier does not avoid a finding that his own negligence materially contributed to the collision. (Derived from Douglas v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. (n.d.).)