Opinion ID: 70759
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sole Proximate Cause

Text: 15 The District Court held that Ms. Weaver reasonably should have been aware of the oncoming train and that she was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Thus, her representatives could not recover from the railroad. The District Court went on to deny recovery to the representatives of Mr. Michael, the passenger. Under Georgia law, a driver's negligence cannot be imputed to a passenger; if the Norfolk was only 1% responsible, then Mr. Michael could recover from the railroad. See Central of Georgia Railway Company v. Luther, 128 Ga.App. 178, 182, 196 S.E.2d 149, 153 (1973); Isom v. Schettino, 129 Ga.App. 73, 76, 199 S.E.2d 89, 93 (1973). However, if the driver is the sole proximate cause of the accident because she knew or should have known of the approaching train, then the railroad cannot be liable (even to the passenger) for failing to provide adequate warning of the approaching train. See Southern Ry. Co. v. Blake, 101 Ga. 217, 29 S.E. 288 (1897); Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Mitcham, 127 Ga.App. 102, 192 S.E.2d 549 (1972). The District Court ruled as a matter of law that Ms. Weaver should have known of the approaching train. Under the circumstances of this accident, we hold that this is a question for the jury. 16 It is true, as the District Court noted, that Norfolk presented undisputed evidence that the train crew sounded the train's horn and bell, that the train's headlight was working prior to the collision, and that the crossing warning devises were working immediately after the collision. Norfolk also presented an affidavit from Mr. Aaron Morris, the train's brakeman, stating that Ms. Weaver was travelling at a high rate of speed, and that she drove around the gate on the wrong side of the road, in an effort to beat the train. 17 However, other evidence contradicted Mr. Morris's affidavit. First, an expert in accident reconstruction opined that Ms. Weaver was travelling at only five to ten miles per hour, making it unlikely that she was trying to beat the train. Second, the gate arm did not extend more than three feet into Weaver's lane, making it unnecessary for her to go around the gate onto the wrong side of the road even if the gate was down. Third, Mr. Morris never activated the train's brakes; the engineer activated the brakes after the impact. Last, the train's engineer stated in a deposition that he and Mr. Morris discovered that they had hit a car only after the impact. 18 The plaintiffs also presented evidence that the weather was extremely foggy and that visibility was limited, making it more likely that Weaver would not have seen the train even if she had been exercising due care. Moreover, the windows were up in Weaver's car because of the cold, making it more likely that she might not have heard the train even though exercising due care. 5 19 In addition, the plaintiffs presented evidence that the warning devices at the Mulberry Street crossing have malfunctioned on a continuous and chronic basis. The plaintiffs presented witnesses who testified to the activation of the crossing gates and warning devices for long periods when there was no train approaching, to instances when the gate arms did not come down until the train was almost at the crossing, and to instances when the gate arms went up and down in a hatchet fashion or came down only half way. Two witnesses saw the warning devices at the crossing malfunction on separate occasions several hours prior to the accident, and another saw them malfunction the morning after. The Mayor of Austell, the City Council, a State Representative, and numerous private citizens complained to Norfolk about the warning devices at the crossing for many years, but the malfunctions continued. 6 Under these circumstances, it seems to us that a jury could conclude that Norfolk was guilty of negligence that proximately contributed to this tragic accident. 20 Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as we must, and considering that matters of contributory negligence are almost invariably a question for the jury on which the defendant bears the burden of proof at trial, we hold that summary judgment was not warranted.