Lambeth v. Gulf, M. & O. R. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | 1 Div. 3 |
| Citation | 273 Ala. 387,141 So.2d 170 |
| Parties | Isaac J. LAMBETH v. GULF, MOBILE AND OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Leon G. Duke and Seale, Marsal, Seale & Duke, Mobile, for appellant.
Lyons, Pipes & Cook, Mobile, for appellee.
Action by appellant for damages to person and property when he drove his automobile into a flatcar of appellee as its train of cars was proceeding slowly on its track across a public crossing in Mobile, Alabama.
After the appellant introduced his evidence seeking to prove negligence of the appellee, he rested his case, and the appellee, without introducing any evidence, moved the court to exclude the evidence. The court thereupon granted the motion and directed a verdict for the defendant. Judgment was rendered accordingly and the plaintiff brings this appeal.
While the practice of granting a motion to exclude the evidence in a civil action has been criticized (Carter v. City of Gadsden, 264 Ala. 544, 88 So.2d 689; Dorough v. Alabama Great Southern Railroad, 221 Ala. 305, 128 So. 602), nevertheless, the granting of such motion is not error to reverse where either (1) plaintiff's evidence fails to make out a prima facie case (Cooper v. Providence Hospital, 272 Ala. 283, 130 So.2d 8); or (2) the evidence shows without dispute that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law which proximately caused or contributed to his damages. Dorough, supra.
Pretermitting discussion of the negligence, vel non, of the defendant, we address ourselves to the question of whether or not the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which proximately caused his damages. We hold that he was and this is dispositive of the case.
The evidence showed that the accident occurred about 10:00 P.M. on a clear night when the appellant had a clear view of the crossing several hundred yards before reaching it; there was no fog or smoke or anything to obstruct his vision; although he was not a regular traveler on that road, he traveled it about twice a year, had been over it four or five months previously, and knew that the track was there. There was a gradual curve in the road but there was a straight stretch of raod for a considerable distance before reaching the crossing. Some considerable distance from the crossing there was a circular warning sign, plainly visible, bearing the letters 'R/R'. In addition to this sign, also visible for a considerable distance from the track, there were two 'crossbuck' signs and an Alabama 'Stop' sign. Appellant testified he knew these signs were warnings of a railroad crossing, but claimed he did not notice them, but instead was traveling about 40 to 45 miles per hour and did not reduce his speed until within about 38 feet of the train, when he first saw it on the track blocking the crossing, which was too late to avert the crash; he knew he should not override his lights, meaning 'drive so fast that you can't see an object in time to stop' which he was doing; he was traveling at such a rate of speed that when he saw the train on the crossing he could not then stop his automobile to avoid the collision.
The general rule, and governing here to sustain the ruling of the trial court, is that where a motorist fails to 'Stop, Look & Listen' before crossing a railroad track, and he thereby runs into or collides with a train on its track at a public crossing, he is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and his negligence will be treated as the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Coe v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 272 Ala. 115, 130 So.2d 32; Watson v. Birmingham Southern R. Co., 259 Ala. 364, 66 So.2d 903; Johnston v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 Ala. 184, 181 So. 253; Southern Ry. Co. v. Lambert, 230 Ala. 162, 160 So. 262; St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. Guthrie, 216 Ala. 613, 114 So. 215, 217, 56 A.L.R. 1110; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Outlaw, 36 Ala.App. 278, 60 So.2d 367, cert. den. 257 Ala. 585, 60 So.2d 377.
The controlling principle of law, many times reaffirmed by this court, is well stated in Southern Railway Co. v. Lambert, 230 Ala. 162, 160 So. 262, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Johnson
...track is, in the absence of special circumstances, contributorily negligent as a matter of law. In Lambeth v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R.R., 273 Ala. 387, 389, 141 So.2d 170, 172 (1962), Justice Simpson, writing for this Court, stated: “ ‘The general rule, and governing here to sustain the rulin......
-
Stallworth v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 81-7459
...us in determining whether the question of Stallworth's negligence should have been left to the jury. In Lambeth v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad, 273 Ala. 387, 141 So.2d 170 (1962), (t)he evidence showed that the accident occurred about 10:00 p.m. on a clear night when the appellant had a cl......
-
Ridgeway v. CSX Transp., Inc.
...track is, in the absence of special circumstances, contributorily negligent as a matter of law. In Lambeth v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R.R., 273 Ala. 387, 389, 141 So.2d 170, 172 (1962), Justice Simpson, writing for this Court, stated: "The general rule, and governing here to sustain the ruling ......
-
Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Johnson
...track is, in the absence of special circumstances, contributorily negligent as a matter of law. In Lambeth v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio R.R., 273 Ala. 387, 389, 141 So.2d 170, 172 (1962), Justice Simpson, writing for this Court, stated: "'The general rule, and governing here to sustain the ruling......