Brinson v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 16109.

Citation241 F.2d 494
Decision Date01 March 1957
Docket NumberNo. 16109.,16109.
PartiesSam E. BRINSON, and Sam E. Brinson and Maudie M. Brinson, Appellants, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

E. K. Theus, Monroe, La., J. D. DeBlieux, E. Drew McKinnis, Baton Rouge, La., for appellants.

Selim B. Lemle, New Orleans, La., M. C. Thompson, Monroe, La., Joseph H. Wright, John W. Freels, Chicago, Ill., Thompson, Thompson & Sparks, Monroe, La., Lemle & Kelleher, New Orleans, La., of counsel, for appellee.

Before BORAH, TUTTLE and CAMERON, Circuit Judges.

BORAH, Circuit Judge.

These appeals in two railroad grade crossing cases come to us on one consolidated record and are from separate judgments for the defendant, Illinois Central Railroad Company, notwithstanding the verdicts of the jury for the plaintiffs.

The accident which gave rise to this litigation occurred at defendant's mainline crossing on Chicago Street in Delhi, Louisiana, when a passenger train collided with an automobile driven by the minor Billy Lorraine Brinson, and in which Maxine Brinson, the owner, was a passenger. Following this occurrence Sam Brinson, individually and as administrator of the estate of his minor son, brought suit to recover damages for the personal injuries sustained by his son. And Sam Brinson, together with his wife, brought a separate suit to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of their daughter, Maxine.

In each of the complaints it was alleged that the defendant was guilty of negligence in the following particulars: in operating its train at an excessive rate of speed; in causing or permitting its right of way to be obstructed by buildings, railroad cars and certain heavy farm machinery; and in failing to give the required statutory warnings, or adequate or reasonable warnings of the crossing and of the approach of the train to the crossing. The defendant denied negligence on its part, and, in the alternative alleged that both the driver and owner of the automobile were guilty of contributory negligence which barred the recovery of any and all damages sought by the plaintiffs.

The two actions were consolidated by the court below and a trial by jury was had. During its progress and at the close of all of the evidence, defendant moved for a directed verdict in each case, but the court, under Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A., reserved its ruling on the motions and submitted the actions to the jury, subject to a later determination of the legal questions raised by the motions. Upon return of the jury's verdicts for plaintiffs, defendant moved for a ruling on its motions for directed verdict and for judgments n. o. v. Whereupon the court sustained the motions and in each case entered judgments non obstante veredicto on the ground that both the driver and the owner of the automobile were guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Consequently, the crucial question on appeal is whether the district judge was correct in entering these judgments.

The evidence which bears on this issue, when viewed in the light most favorable to appellants, establishes these facts:...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Rutherford v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • February 26, 1960
    ...Rutherford, it does not necessarily follow that the caboose was preceding the engine when it was backing. 6 Brinson v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 5 Cir., 1957, 241 F.2d 494, 496. 7 White v. Illinois Central R. Co., 1905, 114 La. 825, 38 So. 8 "Even, then, though a pedestrian may, withou......
  • Renz v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • February 7, 1962
    ...33 So.2d 139; Calvert Fire Insurance Company v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, La.App.1951, 55 So.2d 693; Brinson v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 494. While it is true that if the right of way is obstructed the driver of the vehicle must exercise a higher degree of ......
  • Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Laborde
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • August 11, 1958
    ...of law for the court or of fact for the jury. Appellees concede, as they must, that, as decided by this court in Brinson v. Illinois C. Ry. Co., 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 494, while negligence and contributory negligence are ordinarily issues for the jury, where there is no substantial conflict in t......
  • Simon v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 92
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • November 17, 1960
    ...33 So.2d 139; Calvert Fire Insurance Company v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company, La.App.1951, 55 So.2d 693; Brinson v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 5 Cir., 241 F.2d 494. While it is true that if the right of way is obstructed the driver of the vehicle must exercise a higher degree of ......
  • 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