Brown v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company

• Decision Date: 08 May 1926
• Docket Number: 26,455
• Citation: 245 P. 1034,121 Kan. 32
• Parties: ANNA G. BROWN, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

245 P. 1034

121 Kan. 32

ANNA G. BROWN, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS-SAN FRANCISCO RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellee

No. 26,455

Supreme Court of Kansas

May 8, 1926

Decided January, 1926.

Appeal from Wyandotte district court, division No. 3; WILLIAM H MCCAMISH, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

RAILROADS -- Accident at Crossing -- Contributory Negligence -- Diligence in Crossing Double Tracks. The driver of an automobile on a public highway, who when about to cross a double-track railroad, is prevented from crossing immediately by a train passing on the track next to him, must, before attempting to cross the tracks, wait until that train has passed far enough for him to see and ascertain definitely whether or not another train is approaching on the other track; and, if he fails to do so, he is guilty of contributory negligence and cannot recover any damages sustained by him in a collision with a train on the other track.

J. H. Brady and T. F. Railsback, both of Kansas City, for the appellant.

A. L. Berger, of Kansas City, E. T. Miller, of St. Louis, Mo., Henry S. Conrad, L. E. Durham and Hale Houts, all of Kansas City, Mo., for the appellee.

OPINION

MARSHALL, J.:

This is a railroad crossing accident case. The plaintiff appeals from a judgment against her sustaining a demurrer to her evidence.

The sufficiency of the evidence to compel its submission to the jury is the only question presented. The evidence tended to show that between Kansas City and Olathe the defendant operated a line of double-track railroad, across which runs the Jefferson highway, a much traveled road from Kansas City Mo.; that the plaintiff going east attempted to drive an automobile across the railroad tracks, there running approximately north and south; that with the plaintiff in the automobile were her husband and two other persons who were riding with her as her guests; that as she approached the railroad crossing she noticed the regular railroad crossing sign and another sign which read, "Railroad Crossing 100 feet"; that she saw the signs and saw a train coming from the north on the track next to her; that she stopped at about 100 feet from the railroad tracks; that she again started her car, approached the passing train slowly, and stopped again about two car-lengths from the tracks; that the train passed by going to the south and had passed somewhere from 50 to 100 feet when she started to cross the tracks slowly; that she then saw there were double tracks, but could not tell whether the other track was an extra track or a switch track; that she looked and listened all the time; that when she got on the east track, she saw a train coming rapidly from the south on that track; that a collision occurred; that the railroad tracks were in a cut, and the highway approaches to the tracks were down grade to them; that when about thirty feet from the east track, the track farthest from her, she had a view of the railroad to the south for a distance of approximately 1,000 feet; that she did not hear any crossing signals blown by the engine of the approaching train, nor the ringing of any...