Opinion ID: 2316673
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Jury Instructions as to Defendant's Duty of Care

Text: On appeal, plaintiff argues that common law principles require that a railroad be held to a higher duty of care than was instructed by the trial court. [3] Accordingly, plaintiff contends that the court erred in declining to instruct the jury as plaintiff had requested. We disagree. A party does not have a right to a requested instruction unless it states the law correctly, appears to be supported by the facts of the case and is not misleading, confusing or already sufficiently covered in the charge as given. Lambert v. Tripp, 560 A.2d 1097, 1099 (Me.1989); Schneider v. Richardson, 438 A.2d 896, 897 (Me. 1981). If the instructions given by the trial court are substantially correct and the legal situation is made clear to the jury, the trial court's decision not to amplify or further explain an instruction in the context of the facts of a particular case will not constitute reversible error absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Olsen v. French, 456 A.2d 869, 877 (Me.1983). Maine common law dealing with the operative standards of care at railroad crossings establishes the following principles: A train has the right-of-way at a grade crossing and it is the duty of the highway traveler to wait for the train. Hesseltine v. Maine Cent. R.R. Co., 130 Me. 196, 199, 154 A. 264, 266 (Me.1931). [4] A train is not obligated to yield its right of way to automobile traffic except where it is apparent that a collision could not otherwise be avoided. A motorist must look and listen, not simply with physical eyes and ears, but with alert and intent mind, that he may actually see and hear if a train be approaching. Gould v. Bangor and Aroostook R.R. Co., 292 A.2d 837, 840 (Me. 1972). A collision at a railroad crossing constitutes prima facie evidence of negligence on the part of a motorist struck in the crossing by an approaching train or running into the side of a train standing or moving across the road. Plante v. Canadian Nat'l R.R., 138 Me. 215, 219, 23 A.2d 814, 816 (Me.1942). If the motorist's view of the tracks is obstructed, even greater care is required from the motorist to look and listen. The care of the motorist and the railroad must be commensurate with the peril. Gould v. Bangor and Aroostook R.R. Co., 292 A.2d at 840 (motorist must exercise greater care because view of tracks was obstructed by presence of a potato house, not owned by the railroad company). If, however, the railroad company causes unusual peril, the railroad must meet such peril with unusual precautions such as slowing the train or sounding the whistle. Ham v. Maine Cent. R.R. Co., 121 Me. 171, 175, 116 A. 261, 263 (Me.1922) (the presence of over-grown bushes in the railroad right-of-way obstructing motorists' view of the tracks is properly to be considered by the jury as one of the circumstances in determining the degree of vigilance that the company is bound to exercise in the running and management of its trains but the obstruction does not constitute negligence per se); Richard v. Maine Cent. R.R. Co., 132 Me. 197, 201, 168 A. 811, 813 (Me.1933) (the presence of stationary, unlit rail cars in a highway crossing on a foggy night is to be considered by the jury in assessing the railroad company's conduct in exercising reasonable care to insure that automobile traffic travelling at a reasonable speed, properly equipped with lights and carefully operated would not come in collision with the train). The trial court correctly instructed the jury as to the concurrent rights and mutual obligations of motorists and train operators at railroad crossings. The court told the jury that both decedent and defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care under all of the facts and circumstances of the case, but that the train generally has the right of way at crossings. As given, the trial court's charge correctly states the common law principles operative in this case and places the jury on notice that it must consider the obligations of both the railroad and the automobile operator in the context of all of the facts. Plaintiff's contention that the railroad created an unusual peril merely by operating its train on the night of the accident is not supported by the facts presented at trial. Witnesses testified that the rules and regulations governing the operation of trains are essentially the same under foggy conditions as under normal conditions except that in fog the rules instruct the train crew to brightly illuminate the headlight and ditchlights, sound the whistle as the train approaches a crossing, stay within the posted speed limits and stop the train if they cannot see the track signals. The train's engineer, Robert Dorian, testified that on the night of the accident the block signals were visible to the train crew, the whistle was properly sounded and the ditchlights and headlights were properly illuminated. The trial testimony also established that the train was travelling at forty miles per hour, well within the forty-five mile per hour speed limit posted at the crossing. Having complied with regulations, Canadian Pacific had no further obligation under the common law to cease normal operations because of the presence of fog. It was for the jury in this case to decide whether, in the exercise of reasonable care, the railroad personnel should have taken extraordinary precautions such as dropping flares or placing a flagman at the crossing. In this case, the jury determined that reasonable care did not require the railroad to take such precautions. The presiding justice committed no error in declining to give an instruction indicating that extraordinary precautions were required as a matter of law.