Davis v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 80-1458

Decision Date05 November 1981
Docket NumberNo. 80-1458,80-1458
Citation663 F.2d 1028
PartiesWalter E. DAVIS, Appellant, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN, INC., Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Jerry Earl Benson of Morgan, Morgan & Benson, Watonga, Okl., for appellant.

Grey W. Satterfield, Oklahoma City, Okl., for appellee.

Before DOYLE and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and CHILSON *, District Judge.

CHILSON, District Judge.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In the early morning of September 30, 1977, plaintiff, while driving his car on a road between Watonga and Longdale, Oklahoma, struck the side of a freight train owned and operated by the defendant.

Plaintiff commenced an action in a state court of Oklahoma to recover damages resulting from the collision.

Defendant removed the action from the state court to the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on the ground of diversity of citizenship and filed a motion for summary judgment of dismissal. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff appealed.

From a review of the depositions and other documents filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court finds no genuine issue as to any material fact and determines the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

UNCONTROVERTED FACTS

About 2:00 A.M. on the morning of September 30, 1977, the plaintiff left Watonga to drive one Bowers to Longdale, located some miles westerly of Watonga. The defendant's railroad tracks crossed the road at a point between the two towns. Both the plaintiff and his passenger had traveled the road before and knew of the existence of the railroad crossing.

On the way from Watonga to the crossing, plaintiff encountered pockets of fog and at such times, he slowed the speed of the car from 50 to 55 miles per hour to 30 to 35 miles per hour. As the plaintiff approached the crossing, he was driving 50 to 55 miles per hour.

When plaintiff was about 150 feet from the crossing, he saw something moving in the roadway. He applied his brakes and the car skidded from that point until it struck the side of a freight train which was traveling in a northerly direction to its ultimate destination at Southard, Oklahoma, located some distance north of the crossing.

The train had stopped south of the crossing to pick up six hopper cars that were on a side track in the vicinity of the railroad crossing. To accomplish this, the engine was uncoupled from the train, proceeded northerly across the crossing to the siding, coupled on to the hopper cars, moved them to the main track, backed the hopper cars across the crossing, and coupled them to the original train. This pickup operation took five to ten minutes.

When the coupling was completed, the train then resumed its journey in a northerly direction toward Southard.

At the time of the collision, the train was moving from one to four miles per hour and the engine had proceeded from its position in the crossing to a point approximately 120 to 150 feet north of the crossing. The plaintiff's car struck the fourth car behind the engine.

The plaintiff testified that as he approached the crossing, there was some mist and fog in the air, that he did not have his windshield wipers in operation, that he heard no train bell or whistle, and saw no train lights. The train crew testified that at all times the locomotive head light was in operation and at appropriate times the whistle was sounded.

The approach to the crossing from the east was obscured by a hill about one-half to three-quarter miles east of the crossing. From the bottom of the hill to the crossing, the terrain was flat, the view of the crossing was unobstructed, but there was grass, shrubs, and trees on both sides of the road near the railroad crossing.

There was a "crossbuck" railroad sign on the west side of the tracks and a railroad crossing sign located 150 to 200 feet east of the crossing.

APPLICABLE LAW

Since the incident occurred in the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma law governs.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court in numerous decisions has determined the applicable law in cases where a car ran into the side of a train which was occupying a railroad crossing.

In Smoot v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co., 378 F.2d 879 (10th Cir. 1967) this Court, in reviewing these decisions, stated:

In a number of cases the Oklahoma Supreme Court has denied recovery from a railroad company for injuries sustained when a train, while occupying an intersection, was struck by a motor vehicle. In Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka Ry. Co. v. Nickels, 343 P.2d 1094, the court reviewed its decisions which had considered the liability of railroads for damages resulting from motor vehicles being driven into a train occupying a highway crossing and Ordinarily, the presence of a train or railway cars on a crossing, whether moving or stationary, is sufficient notice to a driver of a vehicle on the highway of such obstruction and, in the absence of unusual circumstances, the operating railway company is not under any duty to provide any other notice or warning.

followed Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf Ry. Co. v. Painter, 333 P.2d 547, 548, where the general rule was stated:

See also, Holt v. Thompson, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 1013; Wm. A. Smith, Constr. Co. v. Brumley, 10 Cir., 88 F.2d 803; Cain v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., Okl., 293 P.2d 355; Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Templar, 204 Okl. 460, 230 P.2d 907; Raley v. Thompson, 203 Okl. 633, 225...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Hightower v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 94,011.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • May 6, 2003
    ...... CSX Transp., Inc. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658, 675, 113 S.Ct. 1732, 123 ... See Davis... See Davis v. Burlington... See Davis v. Burlington Northern......
  • Trevino v. Union Pacific R. Co., 89-3402
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • October 22, 1990
    ...813 (1962). For illustrative decisions, see Clark v. Columbus & Greenville Ry., 473 So.2d 947 (Miss.1985); Davis v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 663 F.2d 1028 (10th Cir.1981); Owens v. International Paper Co., 528 F.2d 606 (5th Cir.1976); Pennsylvania R.R. v. Goldenbaum, 269 A.2d 229, 233-34 ......
  • Hurst v. Union Pacific R. Co., 91-6091
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • March 10, 1992
    ...circumstances, the operating railway company is not under any duty to provide any other notice or warning. Davis v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 663 F.2d 1028, 1030 (10th Cir.1981) (quoting Kansas, O. & G. Ry. Co. v. Painter, 333 P.2d 547, 548 (Okla.1958)) (emphasis added). The rule is not un......
  • Deaver v. Missouri Pacific R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • November 29, 1993
    ...Co. v. Nickels, 343 P.2d 1094, 1099 (Okla.1959); Lowden v. Bowles, 105 P.2d 1061, 1062 (Okla.1940); and Davis v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 663 F.2d 1026, 1030 (10th Cir.1981) in support of these Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact. The stan......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT