Sisson v. Southern Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 December 1933
• Docket Number: No. 5831.,5831.
• Citation: 68 F.2d 403,62 App. DC 356
• Parties: SISSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

62 App. DC 356, 68 F.2d 403 (1933)

SISSON v. SOUTHERN RY. CO.

No. 5831.

Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.

Submitted November 7, 1933.

Decided December 4, 1933.

Dan F. Reynolds and Harrison Brand, Jr., both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

George E. Hamilton, John J. Hamilton, George E. Hamilton, Jr., and Henry R. Gower, all of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

GRONER, Associate Justice.

On the trial of this case at the conclusion of all the evidence the lower court directed a verdict for defendant. The action was brought to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff when an automobile he was driving collided with a freight car, which, as a part of a standing train of defendant, was obstructing a public highway near the town of Manassas in Virginia.

The declaration charged that it was the duty of the railway "not to obstruct said public highway so as to prevent the free and safe passage of automobiles over said highway and across the said railroad tracks without giving due and proper warning of said obstruction to users of said highway, and that in the nighttime it was the duty of the railway to give warning of such obstruction to approaching travelers on said public highway by means of a light or lights, or other adequate and discernible signalling devices." And the failure to discharge this duty is alleged as follows: "The defendant railway did negligently and wilfully and completely obstruct said public highway, at the time and place and in the manner aforesaid, through its agents, servants and employees, by standing one of its freight cars for an unlawful period of time on the railroad tracks crossing said public highway, thus preventing the movement of traffic on said public highway, and did also negligently and wilfully fail * * * to display at said crossing any light or lights or other discernible signals of any kind whatsoever, as a warning to the plaintiff of said obstruction while approaching said railroad crossing on said public highway at the time and place aforesaid."

The evidence shows that plaintiff, who at the time of the injury was eighteen years of age, at about 9:30 o'clock in the evening, started out with his father's automobile for a short ride in the country. He was accompanied by three other boys, and drove out of Manassas until he came to a curve, at which time the automobile was being driven between 30 and 35 miles an hour. "He was rounding the curve, watching the road as any careful driver does. There were posts along the side which were painted white, and of course he was watching these posts so that he could be in the road and not run into the posts, and his lights were shining ahead of him, and on the curve they were shining around the curve off in the fields, and as he came out of the curve his lights showed him that the curve had ended," and as he "started to take his eyes off the posts * * * all at once in front of him loomed a freight car." He says he did what he could to stop the automobile, but in spite of his efforts there was a collision, the impact of which was so great that the hood of the automobile, though higher than the bottom of the freight car, went underneath the latter practically to the windshield, and one of the boys in the rear seat was thrown through the door of the automobile and was found unconscious in the ditch on the side of the road. On cross-examination plaintiff testified that, after he straightened out at the end of the curve, he was about 80 feet from the crossing but he did not see the obstruction until he was within 40 feet of the standing car. The Virginia law requires headlights of automobiles to be so constructed as to render discernible a person 200 feet ahead. Code Va. 1930, § 2145 (52).

Other witnesses testified the straight road from the crossing to the curve in the direction from which plaintiff was approaching was between 85.75 feet and 110 feet, according to the manner of taking the measurements. The roadway was improved with macadam or concrete for a width of 18 feet. Plaintiff was approaching on the right-hand side of the road and to the outside of the curve, and, with his headlights burning, should have seen the box car on the crossing for a distance of at least 85 feet and probably for a much greater distance. He testified his car had four-wheel hydraulic brakes, and his father, who owned the car, testified that traveling at 30 to 35 miles an hour the car could be stopped in 75 to 80 feet. The uncontradicted evidence showed that the train had just left the Manassas yards and was stopped for considerably less than 5 minutes (as is lawful under the Virginia statute; Code Va. 1930, § 4734). The stoppage was to permit the caboose to be attached to the rear end of the train. One of the brakemen testified that, when the train pulled out of the side track onto the main line, he threw the switch that led into the "Y," and the flagman went over and took the brake off the cab (caboose) so that it followed right down and coupled to the train. As soon as this was accomplished, the witness coupled the air hose and gave the engineer the signal to proceed. All the witnesses agree that as soon as the train cleared the switch (the Y) the caboose followed almost immediately; that the coupling process required only a moment; and that the collision with the automobile occurred just as the train was in the act of starting. The uncontradicted evidence also is that there was the required cross-arm signal on both sides of the railroad track. There was also a disc signal with the letters "R.R." on it located some 300 feet from the crossing, but the evidence as to the then location of it is contradictory.

The position of the plaintiff on this appeal is that it was the duty of the railway company, while obstructing the highway in the nighttime, and in the exercise of reasonable care for the safety of persons using the highway, to give warning of the danger to automobilists using the highway by ringing a bell or displaying a light or blowing a whistle. If there was such a legal duty, then the action of the lower ...