Wm. A. Smith Const. Co. v. Brumley

Decision Date15 March 1937
Docket NumberNo. 1476.,1476.
Citation88 F.2d 803
PartiesWM. A. SMITH CONST. CO., Inc., v. BRUMLEY.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Hal C. Thurman, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Harold C. Thurman, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellant.

Richard W. Fowler, of Oklahoma City, Okl. (Tomerlin, Chandler & Shelton, of Oklahoma City, Okl., Turner M. King, of Ada, Okl., and John W. Swinford, of Oklahoma City, Okl., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS and BRATTON, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

Brumley brought this action against the Construction Company to recover damages for personal injuries and for damage to his automobile resulting from a collision between the automobile and a work train of the Construction Company consisting of an engine, six empty flat cars next to the engine and five empty gondola cars at the rear, at a railway crossing on a branch line of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company near Ada, Oklahoma.

At the close of the evidence, the Construction Company moved the court to direct the jury to find a verdict in its favor. The motion was overruled and the jury returned a verdict in favor of Brumley for $3,000.00. Judgment was entered thereon and the Construction Company has appealed.

Brumley, in his petition, alleged that "at the time of this accident the rays of light from the rear headlight of said engine shone west across the highway over the tops of the flat cars unobstructed; that the rays of light deflected from the tops of said flat cars to the ground on either side thereof and prevented Brumley from seeing said flat cars by the lights of his own automobile; that Brumley could see to the north beyond the point where the flat cars were across the road and by reason of the rays from the rear headlight of said engine said flat cars were invisible to him, and deceived him into believing that the road was open and unobstructed ahead of him which caused him to strike said flat cars without slackening or slowing his speed," and that the employees of the Construction Company negligently proceeded across the crossing with the train without ringing the bell, blowing the whistle, or giving any other signal.

The branch line extended from Ada Junction, Oklahoma, to Lehigh, Oklahoma, a distance of forty and one-half miles. On January 28, 1934, with the permission of the Interstate Commerce Commission granted December 21, 1933, and after advertising in the Ada Weekly News its intention so to do, the Railway Company ceased the operation of trains on such line.

Seven and three-quarters miles southeast of Ada Junction, this line running from the northwest to the southeast, crossed at an angle of about 45 degrees, state highway number 48, running north and south. The highway was 100 feet wide and was level for more than a mile both north and south of the railroad crossing. It was paved with a mixture of oil and gravel. The paved portion was about 40 feet in width. The rails were slightly below the level of the highway. On the south side of the crossing there were the usual railroad and highway warning signs.

On April 10, 1934, Brumley, then 32 years of age, commenced working in the Fitts Oil Field 13 miles southeast of Ada. He resided in Ada. He left Ada for his work about 3 o'clock p. m. and left his work to return home about midnight. He passed over the railroad crossing at least twice daily from April 10, 1934, up to the time of the accident, which occurred about 12:30 a. m., June 24, 1934. About May 1, 1934, the Construction Company commenced the work of salvaging for the Railway Company the materials in the track, bridges, and other right of way equipment on the line and in so doing, daily picked up at Ada Junction empty railroad cars furnished by the Railway Company, moved them over the line southeast toward Lehigh to points where the salvaging work was being done, there loaded the materials on the cars and returned them to the Railway Company at Ada Junction, using a Plymouth gasoline railway engine as motive power. The engine was a regular thirty-ton gasoline engine designed for use on standard railroad tracks with standard locomotive headlights both front and rear, positioned about 12 feet above the ground and equipped with 50 candle power electric lights and reflectors 11 or 12 inches in diameter. These headlights threw a beam of light from 1000 to 2000 feet sufficiently strong to disclose the presence of a small object that distance away. The light therefrom could be seen from a point on the highway 700 feet south of the crossing. The beam was 30 to 40 feet wide at a distance of 100 feet from the engine. The cab of the engine was equipped with a 32 candle power electric light which threw light outside the cab windows.

Three men, a conductor, an engineer, and an oiler constituted the ordinary crew for the operation of the train which consisted of 10 or 12 cars. During the salvaging work a train of loaded cars crossed highway 48 on the way to Ada Junction between 6 and 7 o'clock in the afternoon of each day and returned with a train of empty cars, reaching the crossing between 9 p. m. and 2 a. m. each night. About once or twice a week, the train made a day time trip to Ada Junction for supplies.

There was a siding or passing track which connected with the main line at a point a short distance east of the highway. For approximately two weeks prior to the accident the Construction Company had maintained its camp at this siding. The camp consisted of 5 or 6 bunk cars, a kitchen car and dining room car.

At the time of the accident approximately 32 miles of the line had been salvaged and the work was progressing at a point about a mile southeast of the crossing. The Construction Company's train crew had delivered the train of loaded cars at Ada Junction and was returning to the passing track with the engine pulling the flat cars and gondola cars. The flat cars were the ordinary railroad steel frame cars approximately 40 feet long. The initials of the Railway Company, the car numbers and other letters and figures were painted in white on the sides of the cars.

The train stopped at the west edge of the highway to permit some automobiles to pass over the crossing. The conductor, lantern in hand, walked across the highway to the switch stand, opened the switch, and signaled the engineer to come ahead. The brakeman or oiler with his lantern was on the front end of the first flat car behind the engine, in position to uncouple the engine as it approached the switch, it being the intention of the train crew to let the engine run in on the siding and the empty cars to pass by on the main track so that such cars could be pushed ahead of the engine down to the point where the salvaged materials were to be loaded. The engineer was in his station in the cab of the engine. Both headlights were on. The rear headlights lighted up the tops of the flat cars and the right of way on both sides of the track. On receipt of the signal the engineer proceeded to move over the crossing without ringing the bell or blowing the whistle. The train was moving at a speed of 3 to 5 miles an hour.

Brumley, having finished his night's work, had started home about midnight in his automobile, accompanied by his wife. As the train started across the highway both the engineer and oiler saw the Brumley automobile a distance which they estimated to be at least a mile south of the crossing. The oiler was too far east of the crossing to flag the automobile as it approached the crossing. The engineer did not see the Brumley automobile after he first noted it until it was about 20 or 25 feet south of the crossing, whereupon he immediately set the brakes and the train did not move more than 2 or 3 feet after the collision. The automobile collided with the rear end of the second car and front end of the third car back of the engine.

Brumley testified that the lights and brakes on his automobile were in good condition; that the headlights threw a beam a distance of 300 feet; that he knew that the railroad tracks crossed the highway, and the railroad had been abandoned; that he had not seen any train on the track and did not know the track was being taken up or was being used by a work train. He further testified as follows:

"The rails were concealed by gravel. On the day of the accident he went to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Carson v. Baldwin
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1940
    ... ... Sheppard, L. J. Bishop and D. C ... Chastain for appellants; Patterson, Chastain, Graves & Smith of counsel ...          (1) The ... court erred in admitting the testimony as to the ... not clearly express the subject matter. Laws 1911, p. 152; ... Sec. 28, Art. IV, Mo. Const. (b) The act is a special law ... relating to the maintaining of roads, highways and streets ... 61, 64 S.W.2d 617; Thompson v ... Stevens, 106 F.2d 739; Smith Const. Co. v ... Brumley, 88 F.2d 803; Sisson v. So. Ry. Co., 68 ... F.2d 403; N. Y. Cent. Ry. Co. v. Casey, 14 N.W.2d ... ...
  • Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Switzer
    • United States
    • Kentucky Court of Appeals
    • 13 Diciembre 1938
    ... ... Southern ... Railway Company, 62 App.D.C. 356; 68 F.2d 403; ... William A. Smith Construction Company v. Brumley, 10 ... Cir., 88 F.2d 803; Northern Pacific Railway Company v ... ...
  • Hurst v. Union Pacific R. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 10 Marzo 1992
    ...had an opportunity to present evidence in a trial. See, e.g., Holt v. Thompson, 115 F.2d 1013 (10th Cir.1940); Wm. A. Smith, Constr. Co. v. Brumley, 88 F.2d 803 (10th Cir.1937). Thus, in the summary judgment context, the application of the occupied crossing rule transforms the determination......
  • Smoot v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Co., 9135.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • 31 Mayo 1967
    ...is not under any duty to provide any other notice or warning." See also, Holt v. Thompson, 10 Cir., 115 F.2d 1013; Wm. A. Smith Constr. Co. v. Brumley, 10 Cir., 88 F.2d 803; Cain v. St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co., Okl., 293 P.2d 355; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Templar, 204 Okl. 460, 23......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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