Perkins v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad Co.

Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1962 · Torts

Tortsrailroad crossingblind crossingobstructed viewoverspeedingcompany safety rulesproximate causeguest passenger

Facts

Perkins was riding as a guest passenger in Joe Foreman's car when it approached a railroad crossing in Vinton protected by stop signs and an automatic warning signal with a swinging red light and bell, all operating at the time. The crossing was unusually hazardous because a 500-foot warehouse obstructed the view of both southbound motorists and eastbound trainmen until a vehicle emerged close to the crossing. The freight train, consisting of 113 cars and four diesel engines, was traveling 37 miles per hour despite the railroad's 25 mile per hour speed rule for Vinton, and its headlight, bell, and whistle were in operation. Foreman drove onto the crossing despite the warning signal, and the train struck the car, killing both Foreman and Perkins.

Issue

Whether the railroad was liable for Perkins's death where the train was traveling in excess of the railroad's speed limit at an unusually dangerous blind crossing, and whether Perkins as a guest passenger was barred by contributory negligence because the driver entered the crossing despite active warning signals.

Rule

At an unusually dangerous or obstructed railroad crossing, the railroad must exercise a higher degree of care and caution commensurate with the hazard. Although mere overspeeding is not necessarily negligence in itself, operating a train in violation of company safety speed rules at a blind crossing may constitute negligence and a proximate cause of an accident. A driver's negligence is not imputed to a guest passenger; the passenger need use only ordinary and reasonable care for his own safety, and the railroad must prove the passenger's contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence.

🔒

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 train approached a downtown crossing bordered by a long concrete storage building that blocked the view between northbound drivers and westbound trainmen until each was about 40 feet from the tracks. The train entered the area at 34 miles per hour even though the railroad's internal safety rule limited trains there to 20 miles per hour, and warning lights and a bell at the crossing were functioning.

If an injured motorist sues the railroad, which is the strongest argument for finding the railroad negligent under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that where a crossing is unusually dangerous, especially because obstructions prevent motorists and trainmen from seeing one another, the railroad must exercise a higher degree of care commensurate with the hazard. Mere overspeeding is not necessarily negligence in itself, but speeding in violation of company safety rules at a blind crossing may constitute negligence.