Court Opinion

ID: 9844728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:07:38.523416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:41.123026
License: Public Domain

Berry, Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion' in this case for the reason that I am of the opinion that the plaintiff’s decedent was clearly guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. The deceased placed himself in a position so close to the defendant’s railroad track that he was hit and killed by a passing train. It would make no difference whether he was intoxicated or sober at the time, under the circumstances of this case.
It is crystal clear that when a person stands so near to a railroad track and is hit by a train that person did not use due care for his own safety. The proximate cause of the injury or death would be the fact that he placed himself, without due regard for his own safety, in a place of peril. The deceased did not do what an ordinary prudent person would do, i.e., look up and down the railroad track to ascertain if a train were approaching from either direction before he placed himself in a position that he could be struck by a passing train.
It is indeed a weak argument that the plaintiff’s decedent didn’t look in the direction of the approaching train because the trains usually ran in the same direction on both tracks where the accident occurred. There was *306no duty on the defendant railroad company to run all its trains in one direction, but there was a duty on the part of the plaintiff’s decedent to look in both directions.
The controlling fact in. the case at bar is that the plaintiff’s decedent placed himself in a position where he was hit and killed by a passing train and this fact is not disputed. It would make no difference whether he was on the railroad tracks or too close to them. The result is the same in both cases and only one conclusion can be drawn from such fact. When this situation exists the question of contributory negligence is a matter of law to be decided by the court and not the jury. Krodel v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 99 W.Va. 374, 128 S.E. 824.
It was held in the case of Lester v. Norfolk and Western Railway Co., Ill W.Va. 605, 163 S.E. 434 that a person must exercise reasonable care for his own safety at a railroad crossing and where the facts make it clear that a person could have seen an approaching train in time to avoid being hit by the train if he had looked properly, he will not be heard to say that he looked but did not see the train.
It was held in the case of Robertson v. Monongahela Power & Railway Co., 99 W.Va. 356, 128 S.E. 829, that a person has the duty to look and listen in both directions at a railroad crossing, and, also, that it is the duty of a traveler to exercise care to select a position from which an effective observation can be made to ascertain if there is a train approaching on the railroad track.
The case of Arrowood v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 127 W.Va. 310, 32 S.E.2d 634, relied on by the appellees is not applicable to the facts in the case at bar. The driver of the automobile in that case stopped before crossing the track and started across the tracks after he looked but did not see a train approaching while at the same time no warning of the train’s approach was given which resulted in the automobile being struck by the train while on the tracks. Also, in that case, the undisputed evidence allowed two conclusions to be drawn, one that the deceased person *307was guilty of contributory negligence, and the other that he exercised due care in attempting to cross the railway tracks. The same situation is not present in the case at bar because it is clear from the undisputed evidence that the plaintiff’s decedent did not exercise due care when he placed himself in a position where he could be struck by a passing train and remained there without even looking in the direction from which the train was approaching.
For the reasons stated in this dissenting opinion, I would reverse the judgment of the Circuit Court of Mingo County, set aside the verdict of the jury and grant the defendant a new trial.