Adams v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 7503.
| Citation | 117 F.2d 649 |
| Decision Date | 10 February 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 7503.,7503. |
| Parties | ADAMS v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Richard S. Teeple, James M. Barrett, Jr., J. A. Bruggeman, and Fred E. Zollars, all of Fort Wayne, Ind., for appellant.
Chas. M. Lundin, Wm. J. Reed, and Paul E. Reed, all of Knox, Ind., for appellee.
Before MAJOR and KERNER, Circuit Judges, and LINDLEY, District Judge.
The appellee, who was the plaintiff below, brought this action against the appellant to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been received by him because of the negligent conduct of the appellant. The cause was tried to a jury, resulting in a verdict and judgment in appellee's favor. Appellant's motion for a new trial having been overruled, it now prosecutes this appeal.
One of the charges of negligence and the theory upon which the case was tried, was that Main Street in the town of North Judson, Indiana, where it crosses appellant's railroad tracks, was a level street; that Main Street on the west side of the tracks sloped toward the tracks; that the foot of the incline was 5 feet from the west track; that for three days prior to January 26, 1937, appellant had negligently and knowingly allowed snow and ice to accumulate upon said crossing, thus making it extremely icy; and that by reason of the icy condition of the incline the driver of the truck in which appellee was a guest was unable to stop its progress down the incline and it was struck by appellant's locomotive.
This appeal squarely presents the correctness of the following instruction to the jury: "If you find from the evidence that the crossing of defendant's railroad on Main Street in North Judson was covered with ice so as to be unsafe for travel on the day and date here in question, and if the defendant railroad company knew or had reason to know of such condition and had a reasonable opportunity to make such crossing reasonably safe for use by the traveling public, then if the defendant railroad company failed to use such means as a reasonably prudent person would have used under like conditions and circumstances to make such crossing reasonably safe for the traveling public, failure to do so would be negligence." The facts pertinent to the proper disposition of this assigned error, follow.
Main Street is surfaced with brick, is 30 feet wide, runs east and west, and crosses the railroad tracks in question at substantially right angles. Its west approach inclines slightly toward the crossing which is protected by flasher lights, the top of the incline or hill is about 115 feet from the particular track upon which the collision occurred, the view up and down the tracks for over 50 feet before the point of collision is unobscured, and the incline has a total rise of 3-2/10 feet. On the day of the collision the crossing, which consisted of five tracks and one siding, was in good condition and repair and free from construction defects or grading faults. In the early part of the afternoon of January 26, 1937, Charles Hurlburt was driving his truck eastward on Main Street, and the appellee rode with him as guest passenger. He approached the crossing at 10 to 12 miles per hour and saw the locomotive (which was traveling not over 30 to 35 miles an hour) before he reached the first track which was about 35 feet from the track upon which the collision occurred. At that time all of Main Street, including the approaches and crossing, were a slippery "glare of ice" arising from natural causes, and had been in that icy condition for several days. Hurlburt applied his brakes but the chainless and treadless tires refused to hold. It is plain that he was unable to stop because of the icy condition of the street, crossing and approaches. As Hurlburt himself stated it:
It is obvious that the jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Catt v. Board of Com'rs of Knox County
...1189, 1191 (Ind.Ct.App.1980); City of South Bend v. Fink, 139 Ind.App. 282, 219 N.E.2d 441, 443 (1966)); see also Adams v. Pa. R. Co., 117 F.2d 649, 650 (7th Cir.1941) (indicating that in Indiana the "duty to keep streets reasonably free from defects therein, does not extend to defects in t......
-
Hart v. Wabash R. Co.
...no duty to remove the icy condition of the highway leading up to or adjacent to its tracks at a railroad crossing. Adams v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 649, 650. It follows that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover in this action. Reversed and remanded, with directions to dismi......
-
Guttenfelder v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co.
...instruction 10 A was too drastic. It should have been qualified as was the instruction given by the trial court in Adams v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 649. It is true that in that case the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the question should not have been submitte......