Fuller v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.

Iowa Supreme Court · Torts

TortsRailroad crossing negligenceContributory negligenceJury questionsInstructionsrailroad crossingautomobile collisioncontributory negligence

Facts

Plaintiff, age 18, was driving an automobile through Plainfield, Iowa, carrying mail and three passengers, when he was struck at a street crossing by defendants' passenger train north of the depot. Buildings, a cement structure, coal sheds, and two boxcars on a spur track west of the main line obstructed views of the track, and the evidence conflicted about how far a traveler could see, the speed of the train and automobile, and whether the bell was rung or whistle blown. Plaintiff testified that he watched and listened, slowed near the crossing, and did not see the train until he was about 10 to 12 feet from the track, when he braked hard but was hit. Defendants contended plaintiff knew the train was at the depot, drove too fast, failed to stop, look, or listen, and could have seen the train in time to avoid the collision.

Issue

Whether the evidence required the court to hold, as a matter of law, that defendants were not negligent or that plaintiff was contributorily negligent in attempting to cross the tracks. Also, whether the trial court committed reversible error in its rulings on cross-examination and in its jury instructions on negligence, contributory negligence, signals, and damages.

Rule

If the evidence concerning a railroad's negligence and a traveler's contributory negligence at a crossing is substantially disputed, especially where visibility and warnings are affected by surrounding obstructions and circumstances, the case must go to the jury. A traveler is not required to stop at a particular point unless the law so requires, but must use the care an ordinarily prudent person would use under the circumstances, considering the difficulty of seeing or hearing an approaching train and the railroad's duty to give statutory signals. Instructions are read as a whole, and no reversible error exists where challenged points are covered elsewhere or the charge correctly requires reasonable certainty for future pain and suffering.

🔒

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 Cedar Falls, Iowa, Nora Kim drove a delivery van toward a railroad crossing bordered by a brick warehouse, stacked lumber, and two parked freight cars on a side track. Witnesses sharply disagreed about the train's speed, the van's speed, and whether the bell or whistle sounded before impact.

If the railroad moves for a directed verdict arguing Nora was contributorily negligent as a matter of law and that no railroad negligence was shown, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that where evidence of the railroad's negligence and the traveler's contributory negligence is substantially disputed, especially at an obstructed crossing, the case must go to the jury. Conflicting testimony about speed, obstructions, and warning signals prevents the court from deciding either issue as a matter of law. (Derived from Fuller v. Illinois Central Railroad Co. (n.d.).)