Opinion ID: 1385454
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Railroad Track and Standard Warning Sign As Evidence of a Warning or Danger

Text: Johnson argues that the trial court erred in giving the following instruction: [32] A railroad track and railroad warning signs may be considered by you as evidence of a warning of danger. While a traveler is not always required to stop before crossing a track, a traveler is required to exercise care commensurate with the danger. Instruction No. 36. The instruction devolves from a line of cases involving collisions between trains and automobiles [33] and thus historically was designed to convey the concept that the track and signs constitute a warning of the danger of a collision. As such, Johnson argues, it was inappropriate, as well as argumentative and misleading. Johnson points out that her main claim of negligence was that the city should have posted a sign alerting bicyclists to the particular hazard presented by the railway crossing's extreme angle. The hazard was that the tracks could throw a bicyclist. The main thrust of the city's defense was that the standard, general purpose signs in place were sufficient to warn all travelers of all hazards associated with the crossing. Thus, Johnson argues, to instruct the jury that the existing signs may be evidence of a warning of danger, and that a traveler is required to exercise care commensurate with that danger, was to effectively determine the outcome of the case against her. We disagree. The instruction merely allowed the jury to consider whether the signs provided a general warning. Just because similar language has been used in some past cases to explain a traveler's duty to avoid collisions does not mean it cannot also be used to explain the traveler's general duty to exercise due care when crossing railroad tracks. The plain words of the instruction say no more. [34] There was no error.