Philadelphia And Reading Railroad Company v. Dillon

• Decision Date: 24 March 1921
• Citation: 31 Del. 247,114 A. 62
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Delaware
• Parties: PHILADELPHIA AND READING RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, Defendant Below, Plaintiff in Error, v. SAUNDERS C. DILLON, plaintiff below, defendant in Error; Same, plaintiff in Error, v. CLARENCE M. BEADENKOPF, plaintiff below, defendant in Error

114 A. 62

31 Del. 247

PHILADELPHIA AND READING RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation of the State of Pennsylvania, Defendant Below, Plaintiff in Error, v. SAUNDERS C. DILLON, plaintiff below, defendant in Error; Same, plaintiff in Error, v. CLARENCE M. BEADENKOPF, plaintiff below, defendant in Error

Supreme Court of Delaware

March 24, 1921

Judgment reversed and judgments entered for the defendant.

John W Huxley, Jr., for plaintiffs in error.

Robert H. Richards and James I. Boyce for defendant in error.

Two actions by Saunders C. Dillon, and Clarence M. Beadenkopf against the Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, tried together. Verdicts and judgments for plaintiffs. The defendant company brings error, writs Nos. 1 and 2, June Term, A. D. 1920, to Superior Court for New Castle County and Nos. 85 and 86, January Term, A. D. 1919. Judgments reversed and judgments directed for defendant.

Both actions were for damages resulting from a collision between an automobile owned and driven by Beadenkopf, and a car standing on the tracks of the Philadelphia and Reading Railway Company, at the intersection of Third and Harwick Streets, Chester, Pennsylvania. By agreement of counsel the suits were tried together in the court below; also argued together in the Supreme Court at the January Term, A. D. 1921.

The basis of the actions was the alleged negligence of the railway company in obstructing the public highway in such a manner that its freight car lying across Third Steet could not be seen until the automobile in which the plaintiffs below were riding had gotten so close thereto that although the driver of the automobile was exercising due care and caution, it was impossible for the driver to stop the automobile before colliding with the freight car; and also for the alleged negligence on the part of the Railway Company in so leaving its freight car on a public highway in the City of Chester without a lookout and without a light on the car to warn travelers on Third Street of its presence across the street.

The defendants in their brief stated the undisputed facts as follows:

That the plaintiffs below, on the night of December sixth, 1918, between midnight and one o'clock A. M., were proceeding in an automobile from Philadelphia to Wilmington; that they traveled south along Third Street, a public street in the City of Chester and State of Pennsylvania; that Third Street is a straight street for five or six blocks before coming to the crossing; that Third Street is slightly down-grade towards the crossing; that the railroad crossing on Third Street is level with the street, that it looks like any street car crossing, that one would cross it without paying much attention to it, and that one gets no bump or jar going over it; that the crossing is a junction track between the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Philadelphia and Reading Railroad, and is used for switching at night; that the automobile, a Franklin sedan, was owned and driven by Beadenkopf; that the automobile was equipped with Legalite lenses and was being driven with the dimmers because within the limits of the City of Chester, and because people had yelled to Beadenkopf to put his lights out; that Beadenkopf could see ahead possibly fifty feet; that Beadenkopf was an experienced driver; that the car and brakes were working properly; that Beadenkopf had frequently gone to Philadelphia via Third Street in the City of Chester; that Dillon was riding with Beadenkopf as a guest; that Beadenkopf and Dillon had had two drinks, one with their dinner and one afterwards; that the automobile collided with a freight car which was standing on the tracks of the defendant below, across Third Street and blocking the entire street; that there was an arc lamp on Third Street south of the freight car; that the plaintiffs below saw the freight car at practically the same time, when they were between forty and fifty feet away from it; that Beadenkopf and Dillon were injured as a result of the collision; that the automobile was damaged; that the automobile was "brand" new; that it cost Beadenkopf Ten Hundred and Eighty-four Dollars ($ 1,084.00) to get an older model to replace it and that the older model was a car of less market value; that Dillon has not yet recovered from his injuries and that they are permanent; that Dillon was in the Chester Hospital five days; that Dillon had gone to Philadelphia frequently by way of Third Street in the City of Chester, but was not familiar with the crossing; that Dillon could stop a car going eighteen miles an hour in fifty feet.

The facts in dispute and which it was claimed were necessarily left to the jury are:

Whether it was dark or clear, or whether the moon was shining; whether the arc lamp on Third Street, south of the freight car, was lighted or out; whether the freight car, if the said arc lamp was lighted, was in its own shadow by reason of the arc lamp and what was the effect of this shadow on the visibility of the freight car; at what distance up Third Street the freight car could be seen; whether Beadenkopf or Dillon, or both, were intoxicated; the speed at which the automobile was traveling; whether Beadenkopf applied his brakes; whether the freight car was a box car a battleship coal car; whether there was any warning to indicate the obstruction on the highway.

CURTIS, Chancellor, PENNEWILL, Chief Justice, and RICE, J., sitting.

OPINION

CURTIS, Chancellor, delivering the opinion of the Court:

The case is brought to this court on a writ of error to the Superior Court of New Castle County by the defendant below. There were two suits with different plaintiffs against the same defendant, and the cases were tried together. The defendant was charged in each case with negligently permitting freight cars to remain at night on its tracks directly across the highway without lights thereon, or other signal or warning being given of its presence, by reason whereof the automobile in which the plaintiffs were riding at night, and which was being driven with due care, ran into one of the freight cars, whereby the plaintiffs were injured and the automobile damaged.

The plaintiffs, Beadenkopf and Dillon, were riding about one o'clock A. M. on a straight street in Chester, Pa., fifty feet wide, in an automobile owned and then operated by Beadenkopf with Dillon as his guest, each being seated on one of the front seats of the machine, and the automobile was driven into the side of one of the freight cars of a train standing on the tracks of the defendant company motionless directly across the whole width of the highway. The freight car was a box car about twelve feet high above the rail. The automobile was a new Franklin sedan equipped with lights on the front, and was being driven with dimmers on the lighted lights. When the machine was about forty or fifty feet distant the train was discovered by each of the plaintiffs about the same time, and the brakes immediately applied. The lights of the machine were such that the driver could see ahead possibly fifty feet, the brakes on the machine were working properly, and the driver was expert and familiar with the machine he was driving. Dillon testified that he could stop in fifty feet a car going eighteen miles per hour. Each of the plaintiffs testified that there were no lights on the train and no flagman or warning given of the presence of the train. Both of the plaintiffs were familiar with the road and the railroad crossing.

There was conflicting evidence as to whether the night, though dark, was clear or cloudy, and whether the moon was shining, but it was not shown to be foggy, misty or rainy. There was also a conflict as to whether an arc light hung about twenty feet above the street on a pole located on the opposite side of the freight train was lighted at the time of the accident. There was testimony that if the arc light was lit the train would have cast a shadow about thirty-two feet in width. Also there was a conflict of testimony as to whether the trainmen exhibited warning lights swung across the track as the automobile approached the train and visible to those in it. The speed of the automobile was disputed, the plaintiffs saying it was eighteen or twenty miles per hour, and other witnesses fixing a much higher rate. There was a conflict of testimony as to whether either of the plaintiffs was intoxicated at the time of the accident.

One other question discussed was whether it was shown that the automobile could have been stopped before reaching the train after it became visible. According to the plaintiffs' testimony the rate of speed was from 15 to 20 miles an hour and both of the plaintiffs saw the train when from forty to fifty feet away from it, but the distance within which this particular automobile could have been stopped at a given rate of speed was not shown, and the only evidence bearing upon it was the testimony of Dillon that going eighteen miles an hour he could stop in fifty feet a car, but he did not say he could so stop the car in which the plaintiffs were then riding. The known variation in machinery, size and weight of various kinds of automobiles, makes it clear that it was not shown that after the plaintiffs saw the train this machine could have been stopped in time to avoid running into the train.

A traveler on a highway by day or night may expect that it will not be obstructed unlawfully or in such manner as to cause him injury while he himself is in the exercise of due and reasonable care, and what is such care depends on the circumstances of each case. All who lawfully obstruct a highway may rightly expect that travelers on it will use due and reasonable care to avoid any danger because of an obstruction. In every case of a collision between a vehicle on a...