Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Railroad Co.

Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1962 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional LawCorporationsPropertyTortsnegligencecause in factsubstantial factor

Facts

Plaintiff sought damages after her husband, a passenger in a car driven by Joe Foreman, was killed when the car was struck at a railroad crossing by defendant's freight train. The crossing was unusually hazardous because a warehouse obstructed the view, and the railroad's automatic warning signal was operating while the train approached with its headlight burning, bell ringing, and whistle blowing. The parties conceded that the driver was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the death, and the railroad conceded that its internal safety rule limited train speed in town to 25 miles per hour, although the train was traveling 37 miles per hour. The key factual dispute was whether that excessive speed caused the collision, since the record did not establish with reasonable certainty the automobile's speed, the distance needed for it to clear the track, or facts supporting an escape theory.

Issue

Whether the railroad's negligence in operating the train 12 miles per hour above its self-imposed safety speed limit was a cause in fact of the fatal collision. More specifically, the question was whether the plaintiff proved that the collision more likely than not would have been averted if the train had been traveling at the proper speed.

Rule

Violation by trainmen of the railroad's own safety speed regulations is evidence of negligence. But negligence is not actionable unless it is a cause in fact of the harm, and negligence is a cause in fact only if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm; under these circumstances, that means the plaintiff must show it is more probable than not that the harm would have been averted but for the defendant's negligence. If the accident would have occurred irrespective of the negligence, the negligence is not a substantial factor.

🔒

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 Shreveport, a freight railroad had an internal safety rule limiting trains to 20 miles per hour through an industrial district with blocked sightlines. A train entered at 32 miles per hour and struck a delivery van at a crossing. The plaintiff proved the overspeeding but also proved that even at 20 miles per hour the train could not have stopped before the crossing, and the record contained no reliable evidence of the van's speed or whether it would have cleared the tracks sooner.

Should the plaintiff recover against the railroad on these facts?

Explanation. The majority rule is that violation of the railroad's own safety speed regulation is evidence of negligence, but negligence is not actionable unless it is a cause in fact of the harm. The plaintiff must prove it is more probable than not that the harm would have been averted but for the excessive speed. Where the evidence shows the train could not have stopped in time even at the proper speed and does not establish the vehicle's speed or clearance facts with reasonable certainty, causation rests on conjecture and fails.