Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Snyder, 4954.

Decision Date14 March 1955
Docket NumberNo. 4954.,4954.
Citation220 F.2d 388
PartiesUNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant, v. Guy E. SNYDER and Lorraine Snyder, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Clayton D. Knowles, Denver, Colo. (E. G. Knowles, Denver, Colo., was on the brief with him), for appellant.

Frank H. Conry and Samuel D. Menin, Denver, Colo. (Eugene Deikman, Denver, Colo., was on the brief with them), for appellees.

Before BRATTON, MURRAH and PICKETT, Circuit Judges.

MURRAH, Circuit Judge.

In this railroad crossing accident case, tried to the court without a jury, the primary question is whether the judgment of the trial court for personal and property damages in favor of the Snyders, husband and wife owners and occupants of the automobile, is without factual support, hence clearly erroneous.

The accident occurred about 6:30 P.M., January 6, 1951, at the intersection of Highway 287 and the Union Pacific tracks near Fort Collins, Colorado. The night was clear and cold and the pavement partially covered with snow and ice. At the point of the accident, the highway runs generally east and west, and the railroad crosses the highway in a northwesterly-southeasterly direction at less than a ninety degree angle. The automobile was traveling east, the train southeasterly, so that the driver of the automobile approached the crossing with the oncoming train on his left. Both the railroad tracks and the highway are slightly elevated above the surface of the ground lying between the highway and the tracks, and for more than 1000 feet west of the crossing from whence the automobile approached, the highway is straight and the view unobstructed. In this space between the highway and the tracks there is nothing to prevent the driver of an automobile from observing an approaching train. On the south side of the highway and on the driver's right, there were several houses with driveways entering the highway. Immediately west of the crossing a country road enters the highway from the south and on the corner formed by this junction there were a lighted milk bar and a gasoline station with lighted pumps and a lighted sign above. There were several cars parked around the intersection; two of them at the filling station were pointed in the direction of the approaching car. The crossing was marked with the usual cross-buck warning sign painted with white luminescent paint. 250 feet west of the crossing a warning of the crossing is painted in white letters on the pavement, but these letters were partially covered by snow and ice. About 70 feet further west, or about 320 feet from the crossing, and on the right shoulder of the highway, there was a reflectorized yellow warning sign with black letters. There were no other lighted signals or other special warnings of the railroad crossing.

On the day of the accident, the Snyders had driven from Salt Lake City and intended to reach their home in Denver that night. They had been driving about 50 miles an hour when they came up over a knoll about 1000 or 1500 feet west of the crossing where the driver saw the lights of the milk bar and filling station. He slowed down to about 40 miles an hour and dimmed his headlights, but did not see the reflectorized sign on the side of the highway or the cross-buck sign at the crossing. When he first saw the firebox of the engine of the train, he was about the width of a city street away and traveling about 30 miles an hour. He immediately shifted into second gear and applied the brakes, turning his car with the engine, which he struck just below the cab. The car was carried with the engine about 350 feet down the tracks until the engine stopped. The skid marks on the highway, measured by a highway patrolman, commenced 147 feet from the point of impact.

The train approached the crossing at a speed estimated at 20 to 30 miles per hour. When the engineer had given the usual whistle blasts about 200 or 250 feet from the crossing, he noticed that the Snyder automobile was not slowing down. He thereupon "bore down on the whistle again and threw the train into emergency." The train involved in this accident made daily trips over this point, but did not operate on a time schedule.

In finding the railroad guilty of negligence and freeing the Snyders of contributory negligence, the court expressed the view that the railroad crossing was dangerous, primarily because of the angle at which the engine's beam of light extended across the pavement at the intersection. The court expressed the view that while the Snyders could have undoubtedly seen the light of the engine from the opposite direction of the crossing, their view of the light was obscured by reason of the light coming from somewhat the same direction in which the Snyders were traveling; and that in these particular circumstances, ordinary care and prudence required the railroad to have a flagman at this crossing or stop the train. The court also observed that since the train was operated on an irregular schedule, it was likely to cause more accidents, but at the same time noted that the Snyders had no knowledge of the train or its schedules.

No contention is made of the negligent operation of the train in the sense that an employee was guilty of any negligent commission or omission, and the narrow question is whether the railroad negligently failed to provide proper warnings at the crossing.

In Colorado, where this accident arose and whose law governs the rights and duties of the parties, there is no statutory or common law duty to provide special warning facilities at crossings of this type. Construing Colorado law, we have adhered to the historical rule that "the rights of the general public and those of the railroad company at a crossing of this kind are reciprocal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Lopez v. Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 21 Marzo 1960
    ...crossing. Interstate Motor Lines v. Great Western Ry. Co., 10 Cir., 161 F.2d 968, 972; also quoted in Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Snyder, 10 Cir., 220 F.2d 388, 391. See also Pippy v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 1932, 79 Utah 439, 11 P.2d 305. But here the collision was with the middle ......
  • Romero v. Denver & R. G. W. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 11 Abril 1972
    ...driver of impending danger.' Other Colorado cases holding passengers contributorily negligent as a matter of law are Union Pacific R.R. Co. v. Snyder, 10 Cir., 220 F.2d 388, which quotes the above from the Willy case; Mabray v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., D.C., 5 F.Supp. 397; and Colorado & Sou......
  • Dawson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 14 Marzo 1955
  • Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. Wood, s. 70--312
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • 22 Septiembre 1970
    ...requires the giving of a special warning to motorists. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Cogburn, 136 Colo. 184, 315 P.2d 209; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Snyder, 10 Cir., 220 F.2d 388. Whether or not such conditions exist as would impose upon the railroad the duty of providing additional warnings at a c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT