Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1934 · Torts

Tortsnegligencecontributory negligencerailroad crossingscustomstop look listennegligencecontributory negligence

Facts

Pokora drove his truck toward a railway crossing in Springfield and stopped before crossing, looking north and listening for trains. His view was blocked by box cars standing on a switch track close to the street, and he heard neither bell nor whistle. He continued forward while listening and was struck on the main track by a passenger train coming from the north at about twenty-five to thirty miles per hour. The record did not conclusively show that the train was visible to him in time to stop safely once the obstruction cleared.

Issue

Was Pokora contributorily negligent as a matter of law for proceeding across the crossing without getting out of his truck to reconnoiter, so that the trial court properly directed a verdict for the railroad? More broadly, did Goodman require the judge rather than the jury to impose such a standard here?

Rule

A traveler must use reasonable caution at a railroad crossing, including looking if looking would be effective, but when vision is obstructed and the adequacy of stopping, listening, or taking further precautions depends on the circumstances, contributory negligence is ordinarily a question for the jury. Courts should not convert uncommon precautions such as getting out of a vehicle to reconnoiter into fixed rules of law absent circumstances making negligence obvious and certain.

🔒

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, Nina Morales drove a delivery van toward a grade crossing on a busy city street. She stopped, looked left, and listened, but stacked freight cars on a side track blocked her view of the main line; hearing no bell or whistle, she crept forward and was struck almost immediately after the obstruction cleared.

If the railroad argues Nina was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because she did not leave the van to inspect on foot, which is the strongest response?

Explanation. When a traveler's view is obstructed, contributory negligence is ordinarily for the jury if reasonable minds could differ about what prudence required. The majority rejected converting the uncommon precaution of getting out and reconnoitering into an inflexible rule of law. The case does not abolish the duty to look where looking would be effective, but on these facts the railroad has not shown negligence so obvious and certain that only one conclusion is possible.