Opinion ID: 2197269
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Crew's Actions

Text: The first issue before this court is whether a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the EJ & E train crew's attempt to slow the train so as to avoid a collision with Anderson's vehicle. EJ & E argues that it did not breach any duty since the undisputed facts establish that the engineer operated the brakes in a reasonable manner under the circumstances. EJ & E claims it is absurd and impractical to require a train to apply its emergency brakes each and every time a motorist violates the [train's] right of way. A railroad has a duty to exercise due care to avoid a collision. (See Lee v. Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co. (1986), 143 Ill.App.3d 500, 511-12, 97 Ill.Dec. 491, 492 N.E.2d 1364.) Although a train engineer is not required to anticipate and guard against the possibility that a motorist may disregard a warning and enter a crossing ( Dunn v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. (1989), 127 Ill.2d 350, 366, 130 Ill.Dec. 409, 537 N.E.2d 738; Sheahan v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter R.R. Corp. (1991), 212 Ill.App.3d 732, 737, 156 Ill.Dec. 816, 571 N.E.2d 796), the engineer is required to stop the train when it becomes apparent that the motorist has not heard or will not heed the signal given by the train. Robertson v. New York Central R.R. Co. (1944), 388 Ill. 580, 58 N.E.2d 527. In this case, there is evidence in the record that raises a material issue of fact as to whether the train crew breached its duty to avoid a collision, thereby proximately causing the plaintiffs' injuries by its failure to apply the emergency brakes when it became apparent that Anderson would not heed the warning signals. This issue is evident in the statements made by various members of the EJ & E train crew during their respective depositions. The crew in the lead engine consisted of Donald Dipert, the conductor, Lee Wayne Syler, the engineer, and Donald Kolofa, the driver of the train. All three crew members admitted to observing three vehicles, including Anderson's pickup truck, ignore operational warning signals at the 22nd Street crossing. Kolofa testified that he first observed the three vehicles approach the crossing when the train was 300 feet from the crossing. The first two vehicles were traveling alongside each other and Anderson's pickup truck followed behind them within seconds. Syler testified that the first two vehicles were traveling 25 to 30 miles per hour and did not stop prior to entering the crossing. Kolofa stated that he noticed the two vehicles cross the intersection and observed Anderson's pickup truck approach the intersection. According to Kolofa, Anderson's pickup truck did not slow or stop. Nevertheless, Kolofa did not brake or slow the train prior to impact. It was not until after impact that he applied the emergency brakes. In addition to Kolofa, Dipert stated that the train was 200 feet from the crossing when he first saw two vehicles approach the crossing. According to Dipert, he then observed Anderson's vehicle when the train was 150 feet from the crossing. Dipert stated that Anderson's vehicle did not hesitate or stop even though the train's whistle was blowing and the bell was ringing. Anderson continued traveling 25 miles per hour. When the train was 100 to 125 feet from the intersection, Dipert yelled, I think we're going to hit him. I don't think he's going to clear. The crew, however, took no immediate affirmative action to slow or stop the train. Instead, the train continued to travel 28 miles per hour. Dipert testified that he was concerned about having a collision with all three vehicles. The facts in the record also suggest that the train crew could have avoided the collision with Anderson's vehicle. A.O. Pipkin, Jr., plaintiffs' liability expert, indicated that the collision could have been avoided if the emergency brake had been applied at approximately 250 feet before the intersection. As previously noted, Kolofa observed the three vehicles approach the crossing when the train was 300 feet from the crossing. Pipkin opined, however, that the emergency brakes were not applied until 500 to 600 feet after the crossing. In view of the foregoing, a genuine issue of material fact remains regarding whether the crew could have or should have applied the emergency brakes in time to avoid the collision with Anderson's vehicle. Accordingly, we conclude that there is a triable issue of fact whether EJ & E breached its duty to avoid a collision, which proximately caused the plaintiffs' injuries.