Opinion ID: 1279862
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sight Line

Text: Plaintiff presented testimony from several witnesses that overgrown vegetation at the Jordan Street Crossing obstructed drivers' views at the time of the accident. Plaintiff also introduced photos and videos taken within twenty-four hours after the accident demonstrating the conditions at the crossing. CSX claims, however, that since it was not shown that a regulatory agency had deemed the vegetation at that crossing unacceptable on the day of the accident, a directed verdict should have been granted. We disagree. South Carolina Code Ann. § 58-17-1450 (1976) requires county supervisors to inspect railroad crossings at least once a year, and to give written notice to the railroad of any dangerous conditions. Section 58-17-1350 requires the railroad to maintain all grade level crossings located in a municipality in a safe manner and permits municipal officers to order modifications to the crossing. In Armitage v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 166 S.C. 21, 164 S.E. 169 (1932), the plaintiff alleged that the railroad had not maintained safe crossings as required by statutes, and that this failure resulted in the plaintiff's decedent's death at a crossing. The trial judge directed a verdict because there was no evidence that the condition of the crossing contributed to the accident. On appeal, the Court first noted that the plaintiff failed to specify which statute the railroad allegedly failed to observe. Speculating that it may have been the predecessor to § 58-17-1450 or § 58-17-1350, the Court noted there was no evidence that the railroad had failed to comply with any governmental order to improve the crossing. CSX contends Armitage stands for the proposition that it is insulated from liability for crossing accidents so long as it is in compliance with all regulatory requests. We disagree. In Crawford v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 179 S.C. 264, 184 S.E. 569 (1936), decided four years after Armitage, the Court asked whether § 58-17-1350 (also cited in Armitage ) merely codified the railroads' common law duty to maintain a safe crossing or whether it created a statutory duty coexisting with the common law duty. Crawford was concerned with breach of duty and negligence and not with regulatory issues. We do not read Armitage to limit railroad crossing liability to situations where a railroad was on notice of an unsafe condition by virtue of an official government report. Rather, the Armitage Court, having been left to speculate as to the plaintiff's theory, was merely highlighting the lack of evidence of breach of any duty. Pursuant to Crawford, the railroad's negligent failure to maintain a safe crossing violates a statutory duty regardless whether there has been any regulatory action. There was evidence that CSX's failure to control the weed growth at the Jordan Street crossing rendered that intersection unsafe. The directed verdict was properly denied. Jinks, supra .