Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Price, 18.
| Decision Date | 01 December 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 18.,18. |
| Parties | MISSOURI PAC. R. CO. v. PRICE et al. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Sebastian County; J. Sam Wood, Judge.
Action by Phillip Price and others against the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company. From judgments in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Reversed and dismissed.
Pryor, Miles & Pryor, of Ft. Smith, for appellant.
Daily & Woods and C. W. Knott, all of Ft. Smith, and W. A. Bates, of Waldron, for appellees.
The plaintiffs Price, Bird, and Irwin — appellees here — sustained injuries as a result of a collision of an automobile in which they were riding as guests with one of defendant's coal trains at a highway grade crossing on state highway No. 71 in Sebastian county, which is the principal north and south highway in the county and carries a large amount of traffic.
The collision occurred about 7:35 p.m. on October 8, 1929, and the facts in relation thereto, stated in the light most favorable to appellees, are as follows: An engine had switched a train of thirty coal cars at Jenny Lind, a village on appellant's railroad. The cars were being pushed across the highway on a spur or industrial track owned by the Western Coal & Mining Company and leading to its mines. The conductor and two brakemen, all with lighted lanterns, were riding in the front or lead car. The train was moving west, and as it came into the highway it was discovered that the switch was lined for track No. 3, the switch being about twenty feet west of the highway. The conductor saw the switch lined for track No. 3, and, as he did not wish to enter upon that track, he gave a stop signal, but before the signal was executed the train had moved about a half car length on track No. 3. A back-up signal was given, and the train began moving to the east, and when it had moved about ten or fifteen feet the automobile in which appellees were riding and which was approaching the train from the south ran into the last, or the next to the last, car in the train.
It was alleged that the railroad company was negligent in three respects: First, that there was no signboard at the crossing, as required by section 8488, C. & M. Digest; second, that the train was unlighted; and, third, that there was a failure to keep an efficient lookout.
There was no signboard at the crossing, as required by section 8488, C. & M. Digest. This section provides that every railroad shall cause boards to be placed, well supported by posts or otherwise, and constantly maintained, across each public road or street, where the same is crossed by the railroad, on the same level, and that said boards shall be elevated so as not to obstruct travel and to be easily seen by travelers, "and on each side of the said boards shall be printed, in capital letters of at least the size of nine inches each, the words, `Railroad crossing — look out for the cars while the bell rings or the whistle sounds.'" After the collision occurred out of which this litigation arose, the railroad company erected a signboard conforming to the statute, but placed it on the north side of the track,
The statute does not require signboards to be placed upon both sides of the track, nor does it provide upon which side one shall be placed. Presumptively, it would be placed where its visibility would be greatest. The purpose of the statute was to give notice to the traveler of the presence of a railroad track. The silent letters of the sign could not advise that a train was already on the crossing or that one was approaching. It could only remind the traveler that there was present a railroad track, along which trains ran, and to look out for them "while the bell rings or the whistle sounds," so that no attempt would be made to cross the track after the bell had rung or the whistle had sounded until the approaching train had passed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Kinard
...et al., Trustees v. Quimby, 192 Ark. 307, 90 S.W.2d 984; Gillenwater v. Baldwin, 192 Ark. 447, 93 S.W.2d 658; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Price, 182 Ark. 801, 33 S.W.2d 366; and that under the rules announced and applied to the particular facts in those cases appellant\'s own negligence in the ......
-
Lloyd v. St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co.
... ... has frequently had the attention of this court. Mo. Pac ... R. R. Co. v. Price, 182 Ark. 801, 33 S.W.2d ... 336; Gillenwater v. Baldwin, 192 Ark. 447, ... ...
-
Lloyd v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co.
...of the blocking of highways by trains standing at crossings has frequently had the attention of this court. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co. v. Price, 182 Ark. 801, 33 S.W.2d 366; Gillenwater v. Baldwin, 192 Ark. 447, 93 S.W.2d 658; Lowden v. Quimby, 192 Ark. 307, 90 S.W. 2d 984; Kansas City So. W. ......
-
Chipman v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co.
... ... Quimby, 192 Ark. 307, 90 ... S.W.2d 984; Gillenwater v. Baldwin, 192 ... Ark. 447, 93 S.W.2d 658; Missouri P. Rd. Co. v ... Price, 182 Ark. 801, 33 S.W.2d 366; and that under ... the rules announced and applied to the particular facts in ... those cases appellant's own ... ...