Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Renfroe

• Court: Arizona Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WINDES; PHELPS
• Citation: Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Renfroe, 266 P.2d 745, 77 Ariz. 28 (Ariz. 1954)
• Decision Date: 08 February 1954
• Docket Number: No. 5734,5734
• Parties: ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. RENFROE et al.

Page 745

266 P.2d 745

77 Ariz. 28

ATCHISON, T. & S. F. RY. CO. v. RENFROE et al.

No. 5734.

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Feb. 8, 1954.

Fennemore, Craig, Allen & Bledsoe, Phoenix, for appellant.

Lewis, Roca & Scoville, Phoenix, for appellees.

WINDES, Justice.

On or about July 22, 1951, at 1:30 o'clock in the morning, plaintiff George F. Cumbie was driving his automobile east on West Christy Road, sometimes called McDowell road. Immediately west of Grand Avenue, this road intersects the main line and switch tracks of the defendant, including lead tracks and two industrial leads. Plaintiff's automobile collided with a boxcar of the defendant standing or slowly moving across plaintiff's path, resulting in injury to the plaintiff Cumbie and Clarence A. Renfroe and William Robert Mahan, guest passengers. Three suits were filed against defendant for their respective injuries which were consolidated for trial and resulted in verdicts and judgments in favor of each of the plaintiffs. Defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts in accordance with its former motion for directed verdicts upon the ground that plaintiffs failed to prove negligence of the defendant, and in the alternative moved for a new trial. These motions having been denied, defendant appeals.

To test whether there is sufficient evidence of the negligence of defendant to warrant submitting the case to the jury, we set forth the following facts which are either undisputed or supported by the evidence: It was a dark night with no unusual atmospheric conditions; Cumbie was familiar with the existence of the railroad crossing; the accident happened at the intersection of defendant's lead switching track; 400 feet west of this lead is Industrial Lead No. 1, and 800 feet west of the switching lead where the accident occurred is Industrial Lead No. 2, consisting of four tracks. On approaching the scene of the accident from the west, there are the following warning signs: 910 feet distant is a circular highway sign with an 'X' and the letters 'RR' painted thereon; 860 feet from the accident scene there was painted in white on the highway blacktop the word 'Slow' in letters eight feet tall and ten inches wide; the usual cross-arm sign was located 20 feet from Industrial Lead No. 2 and 820 feet west of the accident location; 650 feet west of the scene of the accident there was painted in white on the highway the figures '25' in each eastbound traffic lane; 480 feet distant was another circular highway sign like the one heretofore described; a regular crossarm sign was in front of Industrial Lead No. 1 and 415 feet from the scene of the accident; 320 feet west of where the accident occurred there was painted on the blacktop a large figure 'X' occupying substantially all of the right eastbound land with the letters 'RR'; approximately 150 feet west of the scene was another highway sign of the kind heretofore described; and finally there was the regular cross-arm 20 feet from the crossing where the accident happened. It is difficult to clearly describe all these warning signs and in the hope of clarification, we submit the following illustrative sketch showing the highway, the various tracks, the location of the respective signs and their distance from the scene of the accident.

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

The defendant was engaged in switching operations across West Christy Road. The switch engine was north of the highway, backing freight cars southerly across the intersection and 'kicking' them onto switch tracks to the south. The boxcar involved in the accident had been backed into the intersection and the engine was north thereof at the time of the accident. The engine foreman who apparently was in charge of the operations, walked to the south end of the boxcar and observed the headlights of an automobile, later proved to be plaintiff Cumbie's car, approaching from the west, at a distance, according to the witness' estimate, of about a quarter of a mile. The engine foreman gave no warning signal of the presence of the boxcar and proceeded with his switching duties. Plaintiff Cumbie testified his brakes...