Johnson v. Me. Cent. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 August 1944
• Citation: 38 A.2d 884
• Parties: JOHNSON v. MAINE CENT. R. CO.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

38 A.2d 884

JOHNSON

v.MAINE CENT. R. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Aug. 14, 1944.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Lincoln County.

Action by Grace N. Johnson against Maine Central Railroad Company for personal injuries sustained in a railroad grade crossing accident. At the close of the evidence the trial court ordered a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions overruled.

Before STURGIS, C. J., and THAXTER, HUDSON, MANSER, and CHAPMAN, JJ.

Harvey D. Eaton, of Waterville, and Arthur Garfield Hays, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Perkins, Weeks & Hutchins, of Waterville, for defendant.

MANSER, Justice.

This action is for personal injuries sustained as a result of a railroad grade crossing accident. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court ordered a verdict for the defendant. The case comes forward on exceptions to that ruling and exceptions to the exclusion of certain evidence.

The plaintiff was operating a Ford coupe and the collision occurred with a steam passenger railroad train at the Main St. crossing in Wiscasset on the morning of June 26, 1938. The plaintiff sustained grievous injuries. The train, consisting of engine, baggage car, two coaches and three sleeping cars (not occupied), was being operated from Portland to Rockland, and was scheduled to stop at the Wiscasset station, about 800 ft. beyond the crossing. The plaintiff had started out at about 5:30 A. M. standard time from a place near Thomaston, and had just crossed the bridge over the Sheepscot River entering Wiscasset. This bridge is a long one, 22 ft. wide, and runs straight towards the crossing and at right angles thereto. There is a slight 1 % down grade for about 900 ft. to the proximity of the crossing, where the road levels off. The roadway of the bridge is of asphalt planking, and from the bridge is of bituminous construction. There are buildings in the vicinity of the crossing, one located 17 ft. south of the tracks on one side of the road, and another 25 ft. south on the other side. The distance between the two buildings is 50 ft.

The plaintiff alleges due care on her part, and that the Railroad was negligent because of a lack of suitable and sufficient signs, signals and warnings to approaching travelers.

According to the undisputed testimony, the visual evidences of the railroad crossing at grade were as follows:

Two parallel sets of railroad tracks; a standard railroad sign erected under State direction 259 ft. from the crossing; a pole carrying cross bars, bearing the sign “Railroad Crossing”; a flashing signal, having six lights, with oscillating arm and disc swinging thereunder; railroad gates or bars extending upwards; a gateman's shanty, and finally the train itself approaching at a speed of from 8 to 10 miles per hour, but somewhat obscured by the buildings near the crossing.

The audible evidences were: Engine whistle started at the whistling post, a thousand feet away, and a second time when in closer proximity to the crossing; the engine bell, operated automatically by air valve, and ringing continuously from the whistling post until the accident had taken place; a gong attached to a wigwag signal and ringing steadily; the noise of a steam passenger train in operation.

The plaintiff, possessed of normal vision and hearing, was oblivious of all these portents of peril until the forward part of the engine passed in front of her car, when it was but a few feet away. The collision immediately followed.

The plaintiff was a summer visitor who was unfamiliar with the highway route, having passed over it but once and then travelling in the opposite direction. Her explanation of her failure to apprehend any of the signals of an approaching train directly crossing her line of travel was that weather and road conditions prevented. She asserts that it was raining hard, that it was misty and foggy, that she was peering ahead to keep on the highway, that she had previously passed over a long bridge which had metal expansion joints every 52 ft. and which caused a recurrent thumping sound, and that as a result of all these factors, she had slowed down to a speed of 20 miles per hour. She contends that she was not chargeable with any want of due care under the circumstances.

It is true that ofttimes safety methods are designed, as for instance by the abolition of grade crossings, to prevent accidents which might otherwise be caused by the failure of travelers to make use of their normal faculties. The State, however, permits grade crossings in many places, even in congested areas, and travelers must expect to find them throughout the country districts. The law does require that the Railroads exercise care and prudence commensurate with the degree of danger involved. Dyer v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 120 Me. 154, 113 A. 26; Smith v. Maine Cent. R. Co., 87 Me. 339, 32 A. 967.

Under ordinary circumstances, it might have been argued that where there were gates installed at a crossing, which were not lowered at the time a train approached the crossing, such open gates invited passing, while closed gates might have prevented it. In the present instance, however, the plaintiff did not see the gates at all, so she cannot complain that she was thus led into peril. The record also shows that a short time before, the Public Utilities Commission had issued an order for this particular crossing, directing that the railroad “continue to operate and maintain an automatic signal with circuit control except that said signal shall be cut out and in lieu thereof continue manually operated double gates during such hours of the day as freight train switching movements are being made over the crossing, or within the circuit controlling the automatic signal. All train or car movements shall be restricted to not more than ten miles per hour.”

This evidently was to dispense with the automatic audible signals at times when they would otherwise continue to operate over considerable periods, and be a cause of annoyance to persons in the vicinity. In any event, the Railroad cannot be deemed negligent for complying with an order of the supervisory State authority.

Counsel for the plaintiff insists that greater precautions should have been taken by the Railroad to protect travelers ignorant of the proximity of the railroad tracks and obliged to cope with rain, wind, fog and mist. The only conclusion that can be reached from the testimony is that, either her mind was so absorbed with the difficulties of operating her car under the circumstances, which made her oblivious to sounds and signals clearly heard by others much farther away from the scene, or that weather conditions were such that she should have stopped and waited for them to clear, as is sometimes necessary in severe temporary storms.

It is also claimed by counsel that the view of the...