New York Central Railroad Company v. Delich

• Decision Date: 11 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 13151.,13151.
• Parties: The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Alberta L. DELICH, Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel B. Delich, Deceased, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

252 F.2d 522 (1958)

The NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Alberta L. DELICH, Administratrix of the Estate of Daniel B. Delich, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 13151.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

February 11, 1958.

Paul Lamb, Cleveland, Ohio (C. Richard Andrews, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.

Warren M. Briggs, Cleveland, Ohio (A. H. Dudnik, Cleveland, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.

Before ALLEN, McALLISTER and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

ALLEN, Circuit Judge.

This appeal arises out of a judgment for appellee entered upon a jury verdict in a railroad crossing case caused by a collision at 5:45 a. m. on February 10, 1954, between a New York Central train and a tractor trailer driven by appellee's decedent, killed in the accident. At the point of collision the New York Central, hereinafter called NYC, has double tracks running generally east and west. The NYC tracks are approximately parallel to a single track of the Akron, Canton & Youngstown Railroad, hereinafter called A. C. & Y. All three tracks intersect a highway, Route 250, running north and south. From the A. C. & Y. track south to the NYC tracks the road is concededly steep and rough. 290 feet north of the NYC tracks is a large sign bearing the warning "Bump." Decedent was proceeding south on the highway driving a tractor and four-ton trailer with a 14-ton load of steel rails. He had crossed the A. C. & Y. track and the northern NYC track and was struck at the southern or eastbound NYC track. It was agreed that the engine's bell and whistle were sounding and the headlights were on. The train was running 70 miles per hour. Both the A. C. & Y. and the NYC crossings are protected by flasher lights which are activated simultaneously when a train on either track reaches 3,450 feet from the crossings.

The testimony as to whether the flasher lights were working is in controversy. The crew said they were operating. Testimony, with the aid of photographs, showed that on Route 250 one mile south of the southerly NYC track the flashers are plainly visible. This visibility continues for a quarter of a mile. At approximately three-quarters of a mile from the crossing at a slightly easterly curve in the road two barns and a group of evergreen trees obscure the view so that the flashers are not visible. This is called the blind spot. After one-fourth mile at approximately one-half mile from the crossing the flashers are again visible. A disinterested witness, Sitar, familiar with this crossing, who was driving toward it from the south immediately before the accident at about 40 miles an hour and looking for the flashers for his own safety, testified that on the straight road before the curve the flashers can be seen "if they are working." Sitar said "that night" he saw "no flasher lights." While in the blind spot and just before the curve Sitar heard a noise like a blowout which made his truck "shatter" and as he rounded the curve he saw the wreck. As to the working of the flasher lights and the noise that he heard in the blind spot, Sitar's evidence, taken together with the testimony as to the physical surroundings, raised questions of fact as to 1) whether the flasher lights at the crossing were operating at the time of the accident, and 2) whether the crash he heard was the noise of the collision.

Appellant contends that under the doctrine of Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad Company v. Rohrs, 114 Ohio St. 493, 151 N.E. 714; Patton v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 136 Ohio St. 159, 24 N.E.2d 597; Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad Co. v. Yeley, 6 Cir., 165 F.2d 375, and other similar decisions, the court was required to sustain its motion for directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's testimony and at the conclusion of the evidence. Syllabus 1 in the Rohrs case reads as follows:

"It is the duty of a driver of a vehicle upon a public highway when approaching a grade crossing of a steam railroad to both look and listen for approaching trains and to do so at such time and place and in such manner as will make the looking and listening effective."

The District Court held that it was controlled by a recent Ohio decision, Biery v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 156 Ohio St. 75, 99 N.E.2d 895. In the Biery case, also a railroad crossing case, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of defendant, but the Supreme Court of Ohio in a unanimous decision reversed the judgment. The court in the syllabus restated the established rule that "the trial court, upon defendant's motion for a directed verdict, must construe the evidence most strongly in plaintiff's favor and submit the case to the jury if such evidence, with all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom, would permit reasonable minds to reach different conclusions with respect to those questions of fact essential to be proved by plaintiff." It also declared in the syllabus the equally well-established rule that "Negligence is never presumed. In an action based on negligence, the presumption exists that each party was in the exercise of ordinary care and such presumption prevails until rebutted by evidence to the contrary."

Here, as in the Biery case, supra, there was no showing that decedent did not look for approaching trains when he came to the crossing.

The jury rendered a general verdict. Considering the evidence with all the inferences reasonably deducible and construing it most strongly in favor of plaintiff, we assume that the jury found that decedent saw no flasher lights operating and therefore crossed the A. C. & Y. track. Decedent is presumed to have looked in both directions at the A. C. & Y. track and then to have looked both east for a westbound NYC train and west for an eastbound NYC train. Without the flasher lights he lacked the specific warning of a train in the block. By the silence of the signal he was entitled to rely upon the indication of safety given by the failure of the flashers to operate. Cleveland, C., C. & I. Railway Company v. Schneider, 45 Ohio St. 678, 17 N.E. 321, 322. The third paragraph of the syllabus in this case reads as follows:

"When gate-men are maintained at such crossings, it is their duty to observe the tracks, and know when, on account of trains or engines thereon, it becomes dangerous for persons to cross, and, when it is so, to close the gates, and keep them closed, to prevent persons from going upon the tracks, so long as the danger continues; and when the tracks are clear, or persons may cross without danger from passing cars and locomotives, then to open the gates, and keep them open, to enable persons to cross, so long as it is safe for them to do so, but no longer. Persons approaching the crossing, or about to cross, have the right to presume, in the absence of knowledge to the contrary, that the gate-men are properly discharging their duties; and it is not negligence on their part to act on the presumption that they are not exposed to dangers which can arise only from a disregard by the gatemen of their duties. Hence an open gate, with the gate-man in charge, is notice of a clear track and safe crossing; and, in the absence of other circumstances, when the gates are open, and the gate-men present, it is not negligence in persons approaching the crossing with teams to drive at a trot, or pass on to the tracks through the open gates without stopping to listen, though the view of the tracks on either side of the crossing is obstructed; nor, in such case is their failure, when at a distance of 25 feet from the track, to look for locomotives 150 feet or more from the crossing, negligence, though they could have been seen."

In Tanzi v. New York Central Railroad Company, 155 Ohio St. 149, 98 N.E.2d 39, 24 A.L.R.2d 1151, the third syllabus of the Schneider case, supra, was in substance approved and followed in the syllabus. In accord see Danis v. New York Central Railroad Company, Ohio App., 106 N.E.2d 308, and Eastern Motor Dispatch, Inc., v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company, 82 Ohio App. 428, 77 N.E.2d 275.

The jury could have found that decedent had to shift gears, for the grade between the A. C. & Y. track and the NYC tracks was both steep and rough. The large "Bump" sign at the side of the road a short distance north of the three tracks was significant. Also, the photographs show a steep drop from the edge of the asphalt road at the approach to the NYC crossing. As decedent ascended the asphalt road, 20 feet wide, to the railroad crossing, he was compelled not only to watch for trains and approaching traffic but to keep his tractor trailer from the dangerous edge of this narrow road. Into the pit formed by the road and the bank under the railroad tracks the tractor trailer plunged when it was hit by the train. There is no evidence that decedent did not look down the final track for the eastbound train which was traveling over a mile a minute. Appellant's principal argument is that decedent, approaching the crossing, had an unobstructed view of the eastbound track for 2,000 feet from 125 feet north of the track. This entirely ignores the fact that decedent was compelled to look four ways for two tracks as well as to keep a lookout ahead for approaching traffic. An error of judgment as to the order in which decedent should look down the track might well have been fatal, but it was not contributory negligence as a matter of law.

The District Court correctly submitted the case to the jury. The Biery case, supra, shows that in the State of Ohio where the crossing is hazardous and no evidence is given as to negligence of the decedent, a jury question arises.

The case of Columbus, Delaware & Marion Electric Company v. O'Day, 123 Ohio St. 638, 176 N.E. 569, relied on by appellant, has little bearing here. In that case the jury answered interrogatories which placed the case squarely within the doctrine of Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Railroad Company v. Rohrs, supra. The general verdict in favor of the plaintiff was...