Case Title: Apodaca v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad

Citation: 354 P.2d 524, 67 N.M. 227

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1960-07-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
354 P.2d 524 (1960) 67 N.M. 227 Olivero APODACA and Benjamin Apodaca Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILROAD, Defendant-Appellee. No. 6713. Supreme Court of New Mexico. July 28, 1960. *525 Chavez & Cowper, Belen, for appellants. B.G. Johnson, J.T. Paulantis, Albuquerque, for appellee. McGHEE, Chief Justice. The appellants sought damages for injuries sustained when a train of the defendant struck a pickup truck in which they were riding, on a railroad crossing. Olivero Apodaca sought damages for personal injuries while Benjamin Apodaca sought to recover for personal injuries and damages to his pickup. Both pleaded the collision happened because of the negligence of the defendant. Following the taking of depositions of the two plaintiffs, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds the pleadings and depositions in the case showed the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The deposition of the driver of the truck is to the effect that when he drove his pickup along the road toward the crossing he was traveling between 13 and 20 miles per hour, that as he approached the crossing there was a steep hill which was icy and so slick one could not stand on it. He further testified he knew the crossing was there, intended to stop, and that he always stopped before crossing; that it would not have made any difference whether he saw the train, and that had it not been for the ice he would have stopped, but that when he applied his brakes some 50 feet from the crossing the pickup did not stop but went upon the track; that but for the ice on the road there would not have been any accident. In addition, we quote the following from his deposition: The plaintiff Olivero Apodaca testified in substance that he heard the engine whistle and saw the train about two telephone poles from the crossing, that the road was icy, but that he did not know whether his brother applied the brakes. From this testimony there can be no question but that the proximate cause of the accident was the icy condition of the road rather than any negligence on the part of the defendant. This does not end the case, however, for the reason that, shortly before the *526 hearing on the motion, the plaintiffs filed the following affidavits in opposition to the motion: In our opinion, these affidavits were well calculated to circumvent the motion for summary judgment, but they fail to achieve this purpose, if for no other reason than that there is no explanation appearing therein as to the reason for the great discrepancy between them and the plaintiffs' sworn testimony on deposition. The fact remains, in view of the statements of the plaintiffs in their deposition, that the proximate cause of the accident was the condition of the road, not any act or omission of the defendant. The judgment will be affirmed, and it is so ordered. COMPTON, CARMODY, and CHAVEZ, JJ., concur. MOISE, J., not participating.