Case Title: Norfolk Southern RR v. Thompson

Citation: 679 So. 2d 689

Docket Number: 1950414

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1996-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
679 So. 2d 689 (1996)
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILROAD and E. E. Haynes
v.
Pat THOMPSON, as administratrix of the Estate of Wayne Daniel Thompson, deceased.
1950414.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 28, 1996.
*690 David K. Howard of Jester, Howard & Jenkins, Florence, for Appellants.
Garve Ivey, Jr. of King, Ivey & Junkin, Jasper, for Appellee.
COOK, Justice.
Pat Thompson, as administratrix of the estate of her husband Wayne Daniel Thompson, sued Norfolk Southern Railroad and its train engineer E.E. Haynes, alleging that negligence and/or wantonness on their part had caused the wrongful death of Wayne Thompson, who was killed when his automobile was struck by a freight train at the "Baker Lane Crossing" in Colbert County. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants on the plaintiff's wantonness claim, but submitted her negligence claim to the jury. The jury awarded Thompson $1,000,000 in damages, and the trial judge entered a judgment on that verdict. The defendants appealed, arguing that the evidence required a finding that Mr. Thompson had negligently failed to stop, look, and listen at the railroad crossing; that he had thereby been contributorily negligent; and, therefore, that the trial judge should have granted the defendants' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The defendants also argue that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence certain statements made to the plaintiff that the defendants say should have been excluded. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment.
Mr. Thompson was killed when his vehicle was hit by a freight train at the Baker Lane Crossing in November 1990. Although the engineer testified that he blew the whistle in an effort to alert Mr. Thompson of the oncoming train, other witnesses testified that they did not remember hearing the whistle. These same witnesses said they did remember hearing the crash.
First, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in not granting their motions for a directed verdict, a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, because, they say, the evidence offered showed that Mr. Thompson was contributorily negligent, as a matter of law. The defendants contend that the trial judge instructed the jury that someone familiar with the crossing would have a duty to stop, look, and listen. The engineer testified that Thompson did not stop; therefore, the defendants argue that he was contributorily negligent.
The trial judge instructed the jury as follows:
R.T. at 400-08. The engineer testified that Thompson, before attempting to cross the railroad tracks, did not stop, look toward the train, or take any of the precautions required by law to check to see if a train was approaching. The defendants argue that this testimony showed that Thompson was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. We disagree.
In order to prove that Thompson was contributorily negligent, the defendants had the burden of proving (1) that Thompson had failed to exercise reasonable care (i.e., had failed to stop, look, and listen) and (2) that that failure was the proximate cause of his accident. See Slade v. City of Montgomery, 577 So. 2d 887, 892 (Ala.1991) (defining contributory negligence as "negligence on the part of a plaintiff that proximately contributes to the plaintiff's injury"). Evidence indicated that the crossing where Thompson was killed was a hazardous one. The plaintiff introduced photographs showing a sharp curve near the crossing. She also offered the following expert testimony:
R.T. at 361-62. The issue of contributory negligence is generally one to be determined by a jury. See Adams v. Coffee County, 596 So. 2d 892, 895 (Ala.1992). The plaintiff's expert testified that the dynamics of the crossing made it a hazardous one. His testimony created a jury question as to whether Mr. Thompson's failure to stop was the result of negligence on his part, or whether, even if he had tried to stop, he would have been in a nonrecovery zone. Given the testimony at trial and considering that testimony in light of the instructions given to the jury, we conclude that the trial court properly submitted the issue of contributory negligence to the jury.
Next, the defendants contend that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence what they argue was an offer of compromise made to the plaintiff by the railroad's claims agent, Charles Wickwire.[1] Testimony tended to show that after the accident, Wickwire approached the plaintiff's brother and admitted that Norfolk Southern was liable for the accident.[2] Thereafter, Wickwire contacted the plaintiff and, according to her testimony, told her to make a list of funeral expenses and the cost of her husband's car and told her that the railroad "wanted to do what was right." She testified:
R.T. at 138-39. We note our general rule:
Super Valu Stores, Inc. v. Peterson, 506 So. 2d 317, 321 (Ala.1987). The trial judge heard this testimony from the plaintiff outside the hearing of the jury. The plaintiff's brother had already testified that Wickwire had admitted to him that Norfolk Southern was liable for the accident.[3] The trial judge overruled the defendants' objection to the plaintiff's testimony. In Cochran v. Watson, 628 So. 2d 407 (Ala.1993), this Court recognized the general rule regarding offers of compromise, but found that payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff in that case were "inextricable from offered evidence that [the defendants] admitted liability and, therefore, were making payments in light of that admission." 628 So. 2d  at 408. Subsequent to Cochran, this Court, in Lowery v. Ward, 662 So. 2d 224 (Ala.1995), in an opinion by Justice Houston, reached a different result, distinguishing the facts in Lowery from the facts in Cochran, as follows:
Lowery v. Ward, 662 So. 2d  at 226-27. In holding that the trial court had erred in admitting evidence of certain statements made by the defendants to the plaintiff in Lowery, Justice Houston noted:
662 So. 2d  at 227.
We have considered the evidence in this case in light of this Court's holdings in both Cochran and Lowery and we find that the facts of this case are more akin to those in Cochran than to those in Lowery. Because a jury could find that Wickwire's offer to pay funeral expenses was made in light of Wickwire's earlier admission to the plaintiff's brother that the railroad was liable, the trial court did not err in admitting evidence of Wickwire's statements to the plaintiff.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HOOPER, C.J., and ALMON, SHORES, HOUSTON, INGRAM, and BUTTS, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., concurs in the result.
[1]  The trial in this case began before January 1, 1996; therefore, the new Alabama Rules of Evidence do not apply.
[2]  Evidence of this admission was admitted at trial without objection.
[3]  This alleged admission of liability was said to have occurred before the alleged conversation between Wickwire and the plaintiff as to which the plaintiff testified.