Lunzer v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · Torts

TortsContributory NegligenceRailroad Grade Crossingcontributory negligencegrade crossingstop look and listensudden perilvisible danger

Facts

Plaintiff drove his truck toward a railroad crossing he knew well and testified that he stopped three and a half to four feet from the siding track, looked and listened, and then proceeded slowly in low gear. When his first wheel was on the siding, he saw defendant's train approaching from his left but continued forward because he said he did not know which track the train was on. The siding ended 200 feet away in a visible dirt bumping block, and plaintiff had just crossed a nearby two-track crossing, so the approaching train could not have been on the siding. The train struck the rear of plaintiff's truck on the first main track.

Issue

Was plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law so that the trial court should have directed a verdict for the railroad? More specifically, could plaintiff rely on sudden peril when he proceeded after seeing the train but failing to recognize what was plainly observable about which track it occupied?

Rule

One about to cross a railroad at grade must exercise great caution and keep his senses alert to apprehend his surroundings and to see and hear what would be manifest if he did so. If he fails to see or hear what he could and ought to have seen or heard, and proceeds into the path of a train, he cannot recover. The sudden peril doctrine excuses an error of judgment only when the peril is not created by the plaintiff's own fault.

🔒

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 Erie, Pennsylvania, Daniel Morrow drove a delivery van toward a grade crossing he used every week. He stopped several feet before a short storage track, looked left, saw a locomotive approaching, but continued because he was unsure whether the locomotive was on the storage track or the main line; the storage track visibly ended a short distance away at a large metal bumper. The train struck the van on the main track.

If Daniel sues the railroad for negligence, what is the strongest argument for the railroad under the governing rule?

Explanation. A traveler approaching a railroad crossing must exercise great caution and keep alert senses to see what is manifest. If Daniel saw the train while still in a place of safety and the visible physical layout showed the train could not be on the short storage track, his decision to continue was contributory negligence as a matter of law. Sudden peril does not apply when the supposed emergency results from the plaintiff's own failure to observe what was plainly visible. (Derived from Lunzer v. Pittsburgh & Lake Erie R. Co. (n.d.).)