Case Title: Marks v. Southern Pac. Co.

Citation: 211 Or. 539, 316 P.2d 523

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1957-10-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Affirmed October 23, 1957.
*540 Dudley C. Walton argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Geddes, Felker, Walton & Richmond, Roseburg.
Wayne Hilliard, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Koerner, Young, McColloch & Dezendorf, Portland.
Before PERRY, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, BRAND and McALLISTER, Justices.
AFFIRMED.
ROSSMAN, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment which the circuit court entered pursuant to a motion made by the defendants for the award of judgment in their favor notwithstanding the verdict. The action was based upon charges that John E. Marks, of whose estate the plaintiff is executor, was killed through the negligent operation of a train by the defendants. The *541 verdict was in the sum of $5,000. The defendants-respondents are Southern Pacific Company and Clarence W. Wilson, an engineer in its employ. The motion for entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict was based in part upon a contention that the record contained no evidence of negligence upon the defendants' part and that it indicated that the decedent was himself guilty of the negligence which resulted in his death. The action was grounded upon the last clear chance doctrine.
The fatality occurred a few minutes after five o'clock in the afternoon of September 6, 1952, when the defendants' train struck a motionless pickup truck of which Marks was the sole occupant. The misfortune occurred upon the tracks of the railroad company at a point where they intersect a country road known as Garden Valley road. The intersection is near Roseburg. Several one-story business structures stand near the intersection. Garden Valley road extends east and west. The Southern Pacific tracks cross it at a right angle. The train was moving north as it approached the crossing. Besides the engine in front, a pusher engine was in the rear. Marks had been driving west when, according to the plaintiff, his truck "stalled" on the track. The intersection is guarded by a wigwag signal which, it is conceded, went into operation as the train approached. It is also conceded that the engine blew its whistle at least twice as it neared the crossing. One of the plaintiff's witnesses testified that the whistle blasts were of the regular crossing type and described them as "two longs and one short."
The complaint alleges:
The complaint charged negligence as follows: (1) failure to stop after discovery of Marks' peril; (2) failure to avert the collision; (3) operation of the train at a negligent rate of speed; (4) failure to have installed adequate signal devices at the crossing. The answer denied all averments of negligence and charged the deceased with negligence.
The record discloses no deficiency in the signaling device, and contains no suggestion that anything else was needed. It will be noticed that the quoted language says that the signal was in operation before Marks stopped and when the train was 1000 feet away.
The evidence does not indicate why Marks' truck stopped on the track. So far as the record discloses, it was volitional. Although the averment which we quoted says that "thereupon the said John E. Marks tried *543 to start said pickup to remove the said pickup from said track," the evidence upon that subject is a vacuity.
One of the plaintiff's witnesses, Charles E. Wright, testified that following the accident, defendant Wilson told him that the train approached the crossing at a speed of 25 miles per hour, blew its whistle "and all at once a pickup stalled on the tracks. I set the brakes but couldn't avoid striking the pickup." Another of plaintiff's witnesses testified that Wilson told him that if he had "thrown on the brakes when he first saw the truck in front of him, that he would have buckled his train on account of the pusher engine behind." Jesse L. Perry, another witness for the plaintiff, was proceeding east on Garden Valley road, approaching the tracks, a few moments before the mishap. He had driven that route many times and was well acquainted with the intersection. When he was approximately 150 feet west of the tracks he saw Marks' truck and another car approaching the intersection. The latter car continued on its way and is not involved in this case. According to Perry, "it [the pickup] was coming to a stop at the railroad track." Proceeding with his narrative, he testified that "almost at the same time" he saw the smoke of a train coming from the south as it approached Garden Valley road. By reverting to the averments of the complaint which we have quoted, it will be noted that they allege that when Marks' car stalled on the track, the train was 1,000 feet to his left, that is, to the south. The appellant's (plaintiff's) brief says:
*544 Perry estimated the train's speed as 35 miles per hour. We now quote from his testimony:
Perry swore that when the train was 75 or 100 feet from the crossing it diminished its speed. Referring to the engineer, he testified:
Referring to the man in the truck and the moment immediately prior to the impact, Perry testified:
Following the accident, Perry spoke to the engineer and was told by him that "he had done all he could do to prevent it" and also that "he thought the guy was crossing."
Gene Perry, a brother of Jesse Perry [the witness whom we have just quoted], was in his brother's vehicle as they approached the crossing. He, too, was a witness for the plaintiff. He saw the smoke of the *545 approaching train and Marks' automobile come to a stop on the track. We now quote from him:
He likewise estimated the train's speed as 35 miles per hour before it reduced its speed.
The appellant's (plaintiff's) brief submits the following single assignment of error:
The brief says:
The record does not disclose why Marks did not remove himself from his truck before the train struck; nor does it make any intimation as to what he was doing while the train was approaching. It is clear that the train was visible from his position for a distance of at least 1000 feet after his car had stopped upon the track. As we have noted, the wigwag signal was in operation and the locomotive had blown its whistle not less than two times as it drew near. A photograph showing the wigwag signal is before us as an exhibit. The device is of the familiar kind in which a red painted disc moves *546 back and forth from a crossarm while a bell rings and a red light flashes on and off. Jesse Perry testified that the engine, a coal burner, was "throwing a little more coal than usual" and, therefore, we assume that it was making considerable noise. At any rate, Marks knew that a train was approaching, for the complaint, as we have seen, says: "as said John E. Marks approached within a few feet of said railroad crossing, a small wigwag signal commenced to operate and the said John E. Marks attempted to stop said pickup automobile before crossing said track."
1-5. Both parties cite and rely upon Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263, 191 P 333, from which we take the following:
6. The legal principles which we quoted from the Emmons decision are not challenged by the plaintiff and, accordingly, we will not resort to other case law. The material quoted from the Emmons decision justified the railroad train crew in assuming that Mark's truck would resume its course and withdraw from the track when its driver was apprised of the approaching train. Plaintiff's witness, Gene Perry, who saw the situation with his own eyes, evidently did not believe, at the outset, that Marks' pickup truck would fail to move out of the way of the on-coming train, for, after he had described the pickup truck standing on the track and had mentioned that his brother commented upon it, he added: "The train had not apparently been given any reason to slow down." The plaintiff's brief says:
That observation is well justified by the Emmons decision.
7. We are aware of nothing which charged defendant Wilson, engineer of the train, with knowledge that Marks would not vacate the track until the whistle's repeated blasts had failed to produce the intended movement.
We do not know the basis of that calculation. But, accepting it as warranted, the evidence indicates that when the locomotive was near the Hudson Duncan warehouse, the engineer had no reason for believing that Marks would not withdraw from the track. Near that point the engineer again blew his whistle, and the record warrants a belief that he took note of what was ahead. We think that he had a right to believe that Marks would still exercise his senses and withdraw from the track. He was apprised too late of the fact that Marks did not intend to get off the track. The evidence fails to show that the defendants had a last clear chance of avoiding Marks' injury.
We do not believe that the assignment of error discloses any merit.
The challenged judgment is affirmed.