Johnson v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-1657,85-1657
• Citation: 797 F.2d 1440
• Parties: Richard JOHNSON and Catherine Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Page 1440

797 F.2d 1440

Richard JOHNSON and Catherine Johnson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 85-1657.

United States Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit.

Argued Feb. 19, 1986.

Decided Aug. 4, 1986.

Edward A. Chapleau, Chapleau Farabaugh & Wozniak, South Bend, Ind., for defendant-appellant.

Paul B. Kusbach, South Bend, Ind., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before CUMMINGS, Chief Judge, COFFEY, Circuit Judge, and WILL, Senior District Judge. ^*

WILL, Senior District Judge.

A jury awarded plaintiff-appellee Richard Johnson ("Johnson") $150,000 on a general verdict for injuries sustained as a result of a collision between his snowplow truck and a train belonging to defendant-appellant Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Consolidated"). In addition, his wife, Catherine Johnson, was awarded $35,000 for loss of consortium. Given the questions presented to the jury at the close of trial, the verdicts must represent a finding that Consolidated either (1) negligently operated its train, or (2) negligently maintained an extra-hazardous crossing. Furthermore, the jury must have found that Johnson's actions either (1) did not amount to contributory negligence because they were reasonable under the circumstances, or (2) were not the proximate cause of his injuries because Consolidated had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.

There are no relevant points of law in dispute. Consolidated raises, however, a number of issues concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and the submission or failure to submit certain instructions to the jury. In addition, Consolidated challenges the admission of certain expert testimony and the size of the damage awards. We hold that the jury verdict is supported by the evidence; that each of the challenged jury instructions was appropriate in light of the evidence; that the admission of expert testimony was proper; and that the damage awards were not excessive. Accordingly, we affirm.

I. Background

Johnson was injured at 1:00 a.m. on January 10, 1981 by a collision between his snowplow truck, which was headed north over a railroad crossing, and Consolidated's train, which was headed west through the crossing. Immediately prior to the collision, the train had traveled over a river on a 337-foot unlighted trestle bridge ending 25 feet east of the crossing. Although the trestle was not lit, the crossing was illuminated by two mercury vapor lamps flanking the rails as well as a flood light located 118 feet to the west. No mechanical warning devices were in place to warn of an approaching train, the ground was covered with snow and it was a cold, windy night.

Johnson testified that he was familiar with the crossing. On the night of the accident, he stated, he approached the crossing at about 5 miles per hour. He stopped his truck 10 feet before the nearest track, leaving his plow blade, which extended in front of the truck, close to the nearest rail. Before crossing, he looked to the right three times. Although he saw lights emanating from the apartment complex located to the east across the river, he did not see or hear any evidence of the train's approach. Then, as he began to move across the tracks, he saw a light fall across his plow blade. Because he initially believed this light to be caused by a lamp post "or something" that was falling beside him, he accelerated forward. Suddenly a burst of light hit the cab and passed on, revealing, as he reached mid-track, the outline of the onrushing train.

Although Johnson testified that he could not see the train or its headlight and did not hear its bell or whistle as it moved across the bridge toward the crossing, the train crew testified that they had seen the truck. The engineer stated that it was approaching at 15-20 miles per hour from approximately 215 feet south of the crossing, while the train was moving 7-10 miles per hour from mid-bridge approximately 195 feet east of the crossing. Furthermore, they stated that the whistle was blowing and the bell was ringing, although Johnson's supervisor testified that Johnson's truck was so noisy that a car's horn blowing next to the truck was often inaudible. A crew member also testified that there was some discussion as to whether the truck was going to stop, but when they realized that it was not, the engineer applied the emergency brakes. At that point the train was between the bridge and the crossing (a distance of less than 25 feet), and the truck was approximately one length back from the crossing.

Two expert witnesses testified for Johnson. The first, a physics professor and a member of the Air Brake Association, was put on to demonstrate that the train was negligently operated due to its speed. He concluded that such a train moving 8-10 miles per hour, as crew members testified, would take 45-95 feet to stop. According to the accounts of various other witnesses, however, the train pushed the truck 100 to 175 feet down the track before both came to a stop, suggesting either that the brakes were not applied or that the train was traveling considerably faster than its 10 mile per hour speed limit. The second expert, a human factors expert, was put on to demonstrate that Johnson was not contributorily negligent in crossing the tracks because the train's headlamp was not visible to him. The expert testified that the train's headlight cast a conical beam which, because of the angle of the track to the road, would not have reached far enough south to shine on the truck's cab unless the train were more than 400 feet away. Thus, Johnson was not warned of the imminent approach of the train.

Medical testimony demonstrated that the collision aggravated Johnson's pre-existing arthritic knee condition and psychological testimony demonstrated that the collision caused post-traumatic disorders including depression, insomnia, suicidal thoughts, reduced sex drive, and poor eating habits. Johnson claimed that he was no longer able to work, had lost $54,000 in wages up to the time of trial, and would lose an indefinite amount more in the future. Moreover, he had accumulated $22,000 in medical bills and claimed to need further psychotherapy. Lay witnesses described Johnson as having been active and enthusiastic before the collision, but withdrawn and depressed after it. In addition, Johnson's wife testified that he no longer worked around the house and was antisocial.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Consolidated argues that Johnson was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. A plaintiff is contributorily negligent if he fails to exercise that degree of care that an ordinary reasonable person would exercise in like or similar circumstances. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott, 261 Ind. 27, 36, 300 N.E.2d 50, 56 (1973). When a plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, he cannot recover on his claim, and the trial court must enter judgment for the defendant. Gasich v. Chesapeake & Ohio R.R. Co., 453 N.E.2d 371, 374 (Ind.App.1983).

The standard of care applicable to a driver approaching a train crossing is defined by Ind.Code Sec. 9-4-1-106. This section requires a driver to stop 10-50 feet before the nearest rail and remain stopped until he can proceed safely. It is triggered when the following conditions pertinent to this case arise:

1) a train is approaching within 1500 feet emitting a signal audible for that distance and constitutes an immediate hazard, and

2) an approaching train is plainly visible and in hazardous proximity to the crossing.

Consolidated maintains that Johnson breached his duty to remain stopped and was therefore contributorily negligent by moving across the tracks before he could proceed safely.

According to Consolidated, Johnson's own testimony leaves this court no choice but to find him contributorily negligent as a matter of law. First, Johnson stated that he saw a light reflected off his plow blade. To Consolidated, this light constituted such "clear uncontradicted evidence" of a train's approach that Johnson had a duty to remain stopped until he could proceed safely. Second, Johnson argued that, due to the dark of night, the poor weather conditions, and the profusion of lights in the area (from the apartment complex across the river and the various lamp posts near the crossing), the train was not plainly visible. Again, Consolidated interprets this testimony as creating a duty in Johnson to remain stopped until he could see whether it was possible to proceed safely. Third, Johnson stated that he did not hear or see the train coming. In Consolidated's opinion, this testimony, coupled with the evidence of the slow speed of the train and the truck, proves that Johnson could not have exercised ordinary care.

Although Consolidated postulates a number of inferences that could be drawn from the evidence, Indiana law is clear that contributory negligence may be established as a matter of law only if "the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent." Gasich, 453 N.E.2d at 374 (emphasis added). In the present case, the inferences urged upon us by Consolidated do not meet this standard. First, although Consolidated assumes that the light reflecting off Johnson's plow blade was clear evidence that a train was approaching, Johnson explained that he thought it emanated from a falling light post; he therefore accelerated to avoid what he perceived to be the danger. Under the circumstances, the jury may have believed that Johnson's conduct was reasonable. Second, although Consolidated assumes that the poor visibility in the area should have alerted Johnson to the possibility that he could not see something that was there, Johnson may reasonably have believed that there was simply nothing to see. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that he could see across the river to the apartment complex. Third, although Consolidated assumes...