Case Title: ROBERTS v BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAIL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1976-11-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13352 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F MONTANA 1976 ELIZA W A V E R L Y ROBERTS, individually _- _ - __- - ---- .d and a s Administrator of the Estate r" of Stephen Paul Roberts, Deceased - and Doris Roberts, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, BURLINGTON N O R T H E R N RAILROAD C O M P A N Y , INC., Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, Peete and Brown, Billings, Montana Rockwood Brown argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Gallagher and Toole, Billings, Montana Jack Ramirez argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: October 19, 1976 Decided: ROV 3 O 1976 Hon. Jack L. Green, District Judge, s i t t i n g for M r . Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court: This is a wrongful death and survival action f i l e d by the parents and personal representative t o recover damages arising from the death of Stephen Paul Roberts, age 16. The d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County, granted summary judgment on defendant's motion. The accident occurred on March 20, 1972 a t approximately 7:40 p.m. a t a point within the c i t y l i m i t s of Laurel, Montana, where a spur track of Burlington Northern Railroad which runs i n a general north-south direction, crosses Railroad Street, which l i e s i n a general east-west direction. The crossing i s located 528 f e e t or approximately one-tenth of a mile from the intersection of Railroad Street and F i r s t Avenue South. The crossing was marked by a crossbuck, o r railroad crossing sign, painted white with black lettering. There was no e l e c t r i c signal but a street light was located a t the northeast corner of the crossing. The s t r e e t l i g h t has a bulb with a green reflector and was on a t the time. Railroad Street is paved, heavily traveled and almost level i n the vicinity of the crossing except for a slight incline a t the crossing i t s e l f . The pavement was dry and the weather was clear. Stephen Roberts had lived a l l h i s l i f e i n Laurel and, a t the time, was operating a 350 Yamaha motorcycle which he had owned one week. H e was i n the company of a friend, Steven Blohm, who riding a 250 Suzuki motorcycle. Defendant was operating a t r a i n unit of twenty gondola cars, with the locomotive a t the south end, and was backing across the crossing i n a northerly direction. Jerry Malcomb Jones, a switchman for the Burlington Northern, was on the lead car of the t r a i n unit prior t o and a t the time of the accident. The t r a i n was moving a t a walking speed, approximately three miles per hour. A s the unit approached the crossing, Jones got off and went ahead of the t r a i n t o the middle of the crossing. He was holding a hand flashlight o r lantern. N o t r a f f i c was coming and as the lead car was almost through the crossing (the front of the lead gondola car was about 314 over the crossing) he looked both ways, saw no approaching t r a f f i c , and climbed back on the lead car. H e was had climbed a l l the way up and/standing inside the lead gondola when he saw the two motorcycles turn from F i r s t Avenue onto R a i l - road Street. H e started t o wave h i s lantern and moved southerly inside the gondola. The boys had been a t ~ o b e r t s ' home and were on t h e i r way t o Blohm's home. They turned from F i r s t Avenue and proceeded on Railroad Street i n a westerly direction. They were traveling a t about f i v e miles per hour as they made the.turn. Roberts then asked Blohm i f he "wanted t o race1'. Blohm did not respond and Roberts began t o accelerate more rapidly than usual. Blohm also accelerated and the boys were racing. A s they proceeded along Railroad Street, Roberts started t o pull away from Blohm, and, a t l e a s t part of the time., was glancing back a t Blohm. A t one time, Blohm indicated h i s speed was 30 t o 35 miles per hour and, a t another time, stated it was 35 t o 40 miles per hour. Blohm glanced up once and saw nothing unusual; he glanced up again and saw a l i g h t which he thought was a s t r e e t light; he glanced up a third time and saw a l i g h t about 15 t o 20 feet above the road and t o the right of the center of the road, going up and down, but he kept going faster. H e then applied h i s brakes, apparently seeing the white lettering on the side of the dark, rusted, red gondola car and turned l e f t off the road between a telephone pole and the railroad track, went into a yard' and drove back up on the road. Prior t o leaving the road, he had observed the brake l i g h t come on on Roberts' motorcycle, which braked for a distance of 81 f e e t , then went over on its side leaving 30 feet of scrape marks and skidded into the rear wheels of the lead gondola. By the impact, Roberts was thrown t o the right and the motorcycle t o the l e f t . Roberts was not wearing a helmet and received head injuries. The switchman, Jones, estimated the motorcycle's speed a t 60 miles per hour before the brakes were applied and 10 miles per hour a t the t i m e of impact. Highway patrolman Carranco, based on h i s investigation, estimated the speed a t 50 miles per hour when the brakes were applied. D r . Robert J. McRae, a professor of physics a t Eastern Montana College, estimated the speed a t 40 t o 48 miles per hour. The speed l i m i t a t that point was 25 miles per hour. Officer Carranco and D r . McRae agreed that i f Roberts had been traveling the speed l i m i t he could have stopped i n time. Officer Carranco t e s t i f i e d the crossing was visible from the l i g h t -of the s t r e e t , l i g h t when standing a t the intersection of F i r s t Avenue and Railroad Street one-tenth mile away. The view south of the crossing was obscured by buildings and vege- tation. There had been two other f a t a l accidents a t the same crossing, one within 4 112 months prior t o March 20, 1972 and one 9 months a f t e r . Plaintiffs claim the crossing was extra hazardous and defendant w a s negligent: 1. In the manner i n which the crossing was flagged. According t o the testimony of Jones, it was the usual and customary practice t o flag t r a f f i c a t t h i s spur crossing and t o protect the crossing u n t i l the front of the movement had passed over the crossing. 2. In failing t o maintain suitable e l e c t r i c o r mechan- i c a l warnings a t the crossing. 3 . In failing t o maintain adequate lighting a t the crossing. Defendant claims it was not negligent or, i f negligent, its negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. It further maintains Roberts was contributorily negligent i n failing t o keep a proper lookout, exceeding the 25 m i l e s per hour speed l i m i t and i n racing i n violation of law. Defendant further argues that summary judgment was properly granted on the basis of e i t h e r contributory negligence o r compmtive negligence. I n Beierle v. Taylor, 164 Mont. 436, 439, 524 P.2d 783, the Court said: "Rule 56(c), M.R.Civ.P., provides that summary judgment is proper i f : " I * * *the pleadings, depositions, answers t o interrogatories, and admissions on f i l e show that there is no genuine issue as t o any material fact and that the moving party is entitled t o a judgment as a matter of law. I he burden of establishing the absence of .any issue of material f a c t is on the moving party. * * * But where the record discloses no genuine issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must present substantial evidence raising such issue. [Citing cases]". I n Barich v. Ottenstror, - M o n t . , 550 P.2d 395, 33 St.Rep. 481, 483, the Court again said: "In light of Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., the party opposing a motion for summary judgment on a record which reveals no issue of material fact must present facts of a substantial nature. Conclusory or speculative state- ments are insufficient t o raise a genuine issue of material fact ." In the instant case, although the switchman, Jones, may have violated the rule i n not remaining on the ground u n t i l the front of the movement had passed over the crossing, the front of the movement had passed over the crossing before Roberts began t o approach the crossing. Therefore, i f Jonest action did con- s t i t u t e negligence, it could not be a proximate cause of the accident, Further, the crossing was visible from the s t r e e t l i g h t from a distance of 528 feet, o r approximately one-tenth mile. A t the time the boys turned onto Railroad Street, the f i r s t car of the movement was across the crossing and visible from the intersection with F i r s t Avenue. O n the other hand, Roberts had the duty t o exercise reasonable care, including the duty t o keep a proper lookout. Sullivan and Miller v. Doe, 159 Mont. 50, 495 P.2d 193. Section 32-2144, R.C.M. 1947, provides that every person operating a vehicle s h a l l drive a t a r a t e of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions, taking into account the condition of the surface and the freedom of obstruction t o vision ahead. Further, it provides that i n any urban d i s t r i c t the speed l i m i t is 25 miles per hour, but a d r h e r shall: "* * * drive a t an appropriate reduced speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing * * *." Section 32-2143.1, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "No race or contest for speed s h a l l be held and no person shall engage i n or aid o r abet i n any motor vehicle speed contest or exhibition of speed on a public highway or s t r e e t without written permission of the authorities * * * having jurisdiction * * *." Violation of a s t a t u t e o r ordinance is negligence a s a matter of law. Rader v. Nicholls, 140 Mont. 459, 373 P.2d 312. Here defendant m e t i t s i n i t i a l burden under Rule 56 when it proved Roberts failed t o keep a proper lookout, violated the speed l i m i t and engaged i n racing i n violation of section 32-2143.1. The proof before the d i s t r i c t court failed t o support the p l a i n t i f f s ' contentions. Under the facts, the d i s t r i c t court was correct i n granting summary judgment. It was incumbent on the p l a i n t i f f s t o come forward with proof of t h e i r contentions t o show that a genuine material f a c t issue existed. Judgment i s affirmed. BQ#L Hon. ck L. Green, District Judge, sittCng for Justice Castles.