Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 08 July 2011 |
| Docket Number | 1090011. |
| Citation | 75 So.3d 624 |
| Parties | NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY and Norfolk Southern Corporation v. Ronny P. JOHNSON et al. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Crawford S. McGivaren, Jr., Steve A. Tucker, and John M. Graham of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, LLP, Birmingham; and Ronnie E. Keahey of Keahey Law Office, Grove Hill, for appellants.
William H. Webster and D. Mitchell Henry, and J. Bradley Ponder of Webster, Henry, Lyons, White, Bradwell & Black, P.C., Montgomery; J. Jefferson Utsey of Utsey & Utsey, Butler; Joseph C. McCorquodale III of McCorquodale & McCorquodale, Jackson; and J. Michael Comer of Patterson Comer, LLC, Northport, for appellees.
Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Norfolk Southern Corporation (collectively “Norfolk Southern”) 1 appeal from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding compensatory and punitive damages to Ronny P. Johnson, Kim Johnson, Rolison Trucking Company, and Gail Rolison (collectively “the Johnson/Rolison plaintiffs”) on the Johnson/Rolison plaintiffs' claims arising from a collision at a railroad crossing in Clarke County between a tractor-trailer rig owned by Gail Rolison and being operated by Ronny Johnson and a train being operated by Norfolk Southern. We reverse and remand.
The railroad-crossing collision that is the basis of this action occurred in Clarke County at a railroad crossing located at the intersection of Walker Springs Road and Norfolk Southern's main-line track between Mobile and Selma. Walker Springs Road is a two-lane paved road that basically runs east and west and is intersected by Norfolk Southern's main-line track that basically runs north and south between Mobile and Selma. The portion of track at the Walker Springs Road crossing includes a broad curve. The broad curve begins southeast of the intersection and runs generally in a northwesterly direction before turning back to the northeast north of the crossing. The main-line track intersects Walker Springs Road in the middle of the curve at approximately a 65–degree angle.
Located to the south of the Walker Springs Road crossing and adjacent to the main-line track on the west side is a sidetrack. The sidetrack parallels the main-line track along its curvature for a distance of 1,138 feet and then terminates 100 feet south of the crossing. The sidetrack was used by Norfolk for the periodic storage of boxcars necessary for servicing a local industry. Section 103(d) of Norfolk Southern's operating rules provides:
Section 822 of the operating rules provides: “Unattended on-track equipment either on or off the rail must be secured, locked, and left clear of all tracks that are in service without blocking view from crossings.” Gary Utley, a division road foreman for Norfolk Southern responsible for supervising engineers, testified that section 103(d) imposes upon Norfolk Southern not only a duty to maintain boxcars at a distance of not less than 100 feet from a crossing, but also a duty not to place boxcars on a sidetrack in such a way as to impede a motorist's sight line at a crossing. Gary Wolf, Norfolk Southern's expert, testified that Norfolk Southern had a duty to maintain a “clearing sight distance” so that a motorist within between 15 and 50 feet of the track has a sight line of approximately 1,100 feet up and down the track. James Franklin, a district train master for Norfolk Southern, testified that Norfolk Southern employees are aware of the 100–foot requirement for cars left on a track but that he did not know if Norfolk Southern gave any direction to its employees regarding obstructed sight lines.
Norfolk Southern had located on both the east and west approach to the crossing on Walker Springs Road regulation railroad crossbuck signs—white, X-shaped signs with the words “Railroad Crossing” written on them. The signs were in good condition and plainly visible on the day of the accident. The crossbuck sign on the east approach to the track was located at 12 feet from the near rail while the crossbuck sign located on the west approach to the crossing was located at 24 feet from the near rail. According to Norfolk Southern's operating rules, the crossbuck sign should have been placed no further that 12 to 15 feet from the near rail.2 David Martin, a Norfolk Southern engineer and a member of its safety committee, testified that the Walker Springs Road crossing was a “bad crossing” and that the presence of boxcars on the sidetrack created a “trap” for the public and for Norfolk Southern personnel.
Gerry Faye Griffin lived near the Walker Springs Road crossing and was familiar with it because she had traveled over it “all [her] life.” Griffin described the crossing when the boxcars were present on the sidetrack as follows:
Ronny P. Johnson lived a few miles east of the Walker Springs Road crossing and was very familiar with the crossing because he traveled over it on a daily basis. Johnson was aware that the crossing was active and that boxcars would frequently be parked on the sidetrack. Johnson testified that when a motorist would approach the Walker Springs Road crossing from the west “you couldn't see to the right (south)” if boxcars were parked on the sidetrack. He stated that “you would have to be near about all the way up on the track before you could see down the track.”
On February 14, 2005, at approximately 4:15 p.m., Johnson approached the Walker Springs Road crossing from the west in a tractor-trailer rig fully loaded with logs. The log truck was owned by Gail Rolison, and Johnson was operating the log truck within the line and scope of his employment with Rolison Trucking Company. Johnson testified that he came to a complete stop with the front of the truck approximately two feet behind the crossbuck sign. Johnson stated that he shifted the transmission to first gear and was stopped for approximately three to four seconds. Johnson's view to the north was clear and unobstructed. However, 10 to 12 boxcars were parked on the sidetrack south of the crossing. The north end of the nearest boxcar to the crossing was approximately 200 feet south of the crossing.3 Johnson stated that he could not see around the boxcars to his right from the point at which he came to a stop behind the crossbuck sign. He testified that he looked to his left (north) and right (south) and listened “real good” but did not hear or see a train. Johnson then began to slowly pull forward. He testified as follows:
“
“
Johnson was severely injured when a northbound train collided with the log truck. The train impacted the log truck near where the trailer attaches to the tractor.
On cross-examination, Johnson testified as follows:
“....
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Capstone Bldg. Corp. v. Capstone Building Corp. (Ex parte Capstone Building Corp.)
...(quoting Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Roush, 723 So.2d 1250, 1256 (Ala.1998) (emphasis omitted; emphasis added)); Norfolk Southern Ry. v. Johnson, 75 So.3d 624 (Ala.2011) (to like effect). As noted in the main opinion, wantonness involves an “ ‘ “act done or omitted with knowledge of the probable ......
-
Tanner v. Ebbole
...correctness as to the trial court's ruling. Ricwil, Inc. v. S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 So.2d 1126 (Ala.1992).” ’ ”Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 75 So.3d 624, 638–39 (Ala.2011) (quoting CSX Transp., Inc. v. Miller, 46 So.3d 434, 450–51 (Ala.2010), quoting in turn Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. U......
-
Hilyer v. Fortier
...care, by placing himself in the way of danger.'" Ridgeway v. CSX Transp., Inc., 723 So.2d 600, 606 (Ala. 1998)." Norfolk S. Ry. v. Johnson, 75 So.3d 624, 639 (Ala. 2011).It is undisputed that Hilyer blocked both lanes of travel while backing his tractor-trailer rig into his private driveway......
-
Sullivan v. Davidson Trucking, Inc.
...entering a railroad crossing then the sole responsibility for any resulting collision is on the motorist.8 Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Johnson, 75 So.3d 624, 642-446 (Ala. 2011). To support this argument, Amtrak argues that the Supreme Court of Alabama has repeatedly held that any motor......
-
Point: Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance of Justice-a 10-year Review of the Alabama Supreme Court's Treatment of Jury Verdicts in the Plaintiffs' Favor
...2011)($3 million)(pending on rehearing); Ford Motor Co. v. Duckett, 70 So.3d 1177 (Ala. 2011)($8.5 million); Norfolk So. Ry. v. Johnson, 75 So.3d 624 (Ala. 2011) ($1.5 million compensatory and $3 million punitive); Federal Credit, Inc. v. Fuller, 72 So.3d 5 (Ala. 2011)($25,000 compensatory ......