Court Opinion

ID: 9740390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:34:24.28534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.063699
License: Public Domain

SICKEL, J.
(dissenting). The question here presented is whether decedent was negligent in failing to avoid the *210collision at the railroad crossing. The majority opinion states that “When decedent had driven past the post office, she had an unobstructed view of the track to the west for a distance of a mile or more and this condition remained until she reached a point 75 feet south of the crossing. The depot then obstructed her view to the west.”
The blue print introduced in evidence at the trial shows the depot to be a building 22 feet wide and 48 feet long located on the south side of the track and 150 feet west of the street upon which decedent was traveling; that at a point 75 feet south of the crossing and at the center of the highway decedent’s vision of the tracks was obstructed by the depot from a point 250 feet west of the place of observation, to a point 740 feet west of the same place, or a total distance of 490 feet. In addition, her view was further obscured by three cottonwood trees located west of the depot. As she approached the crossing her visibility of the tracks to the west of the depot decreased and to the east of it increased. It is true that the depot and the cottonwood trees could not conceal the entire train from decedent’s view from any particular position after she passed the drugstore. There is no evidence to show the distance between decedent and the railroad tracks at the time the train came from behind the depot into her range of vision.
This had for many years been regarded by the employees of the railroad company and others as a dangerous crossing. There was a crossbuck sign at the crossing, but no stop sign or other warning of danger. The company was. aware of the need for a warning signal at the crossing, but failed and neglected to install it, leaving the determination to the state highway commission.
This was a local freight train. It was the practice to stop at the station unless there was no business of loading or unloading to be done. When it stopped at the station on the eastward trip the engine would be stationed near but west of the street. Decedent resided two miles from the town. She was familiar with the crossing and had passed that way many times during the years. It is therefore fair to assume that she had often seen the train standing in this *211position. It may be true that decedent had no right to assume that the train would stop at the depot. She did, however, have the right to assume that the train would either stop at the depot or that it would reduce its speed to a reasonable rate under the circumstances, and in either case she could have crossed the tracks in safety.
It is undisputed that the train was traveling at about 35 miles per hour as it approached the town and this speed was not reduced before the accident. The speed of decedent’s car has not been shown but she approached the crossing through the main street of the town and her car skidded a distance of 32 or 36 feet on all four wheels, before being struck by the train, and there is no evidence, circumstantial cr otherwise, to show that her speed was excessive.
To say that had she looked she could have seen the train as it approached the depot from the west is not enough. Even if she did look and did observe the train as it approached the depot it would not necessarily follow that she could or should accurately judge the speed of the train at that point and thereby determine whether it would stop at the depot, or that it would pass through the town without reducing its speed to a reasonable rate. It is quite obvious that when the train emerged from behind the depot and when it became apparent that it was neither going to stop nor reduce its speed it was then too late for decedent to avoid the collision. By failure to stop at the station or to reduce the speed of the train the defendant introduced a danger where none existed before. Peyla v. Duluth, M. & I. R. R. Co., 218 Minn. 196, 15 N.W.2d 518, 154 A.L.R. 505.
It is therefore my opinion that the negligence of.the defendant was the proximate cause of the collision; that the attempt of decedent to cross the tracks was not negligence as a matter of law and that the circuit court erred in granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.