Court Opinion

ID: 9562342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:26:46.758137+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:18.259205
License: Public Domain

McMurray, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent as it is my view that the evidence is insufficient to authorize a finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the train was “plainly visible” to defendant before he entered the railroad crossing. Specifically, the State’s case is based entirely on circumstantial proof which I do not believe excludes the reasonable hypothesis of defendant’s sole defense, i.e., the train was not “plainly visible” to defendant until he was already on the tracks. In fact, the State’s only eyewitness (the locomotive engineer who admittedly accelerated his train moments before ramming defendant’s tractor-trailer) affirmed on cross-examination “that [the] train . . . was not clearly visible from where [defendant] was ...” until the locomotive was “right near the edge of the crossing.”
At about 10:00 in the evening on January 31, 1994, defendant, while operating a “Freightliner [tractor with] a fifty-three foot trailer,” encountered a railroad crossing on a long bend of track near a business district in the City of Waycross, Georgia. Defendant slowed his rig, but did not observe any mechanical or electrical railroad warning signals. Instead, he observed a “green” traffic light on the other side of the tracks, causing him to proceed through the railroad crossing and over an intersecting road which closely (within a few yards) paralleled the opposite side of the railway. Without stopping, defendant proceeded onto the tracks and immediately encountered a train which was rounding the bend. Despite defendant’s attempts to avoid an encounter, the train struck the rear of the “fifty-three foot trailer.” The locomotive engineer did not see the truck until moments before the collision. In fact, he accelerated the locomotive just “three to four hundred feet . . .” before the collision.
OCGA § 40-6-140 (a) (3) requires the driver of a vehicle to stop *805within 50 but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of a railroad when a train is “plainly visible” and within hazardous proximity to the crossing. See Atlanta &c. R. Co. v. Armstrong, 138 Ga. App. 577 (1), 578 (227 SE2d 71). Of course, the State has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an approaching train was “plainly visible” from the accused’s perspective (so as to reveal its “hazardous proximity” to the railroad crossing) at the time of the alleged violation. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560). In the case sub judice, there was no direct proof that the advancing train was “plainly visible” from defendant’s perspective just before defendant entered the railroad crossing. Instead, the State presented proof that visibility from the railroad crossing and in the direction of the approaching train (at times other than the time of the collision) was at least 600 and maybe 700 feet and that the area near the railroad crossing was illuminated (on the night of the collision) via indirect lighting from surrounding street lamps and buildings. Under circumstances “ ‘involving [such] wholly circumstantial evidence, the law demands that “the proved facts shall not only be consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, but shall exclude every other reasonable hypothesis save that of the guilt of the accused.” (Cit.)’ Howard v. State, 148 Ga. App. 598, 600 (5) (251 SE2d 829) (1979).” Reid v. State, 212 Ga. App. 787, 789 (442 SE2d 852).
In the case sub judice, defendant testified that the only thing he saw (in the direction of the advancing train) before he drove onto the railway were “lights” from nearby buildings and that he did not hear or see the oncoming train until the “cab” of his truck was on the railroad tracks. Further, the engineer of the locomotive that struck defendant’s “tractor-trailer” testified that the train was not equipped with modern lighting; that the only lighting on the train was a fixed headlamp at the front of the locomotive and that the beam of this headlamp was not directed at the point of collision (until the train entered the railroad crossing) due to the bend in the railway. The engineer also affirmed on cross-examination “that [his] train . . . was not clearly visible from where [defendant] was . . .” until the locomotive was “right near the edge of the crossing.” This evidence, unrefuted testimony that there was no direct lighting along the approaches of the railroad crossing and the engineer’s testimony that he began increasing the train’s speed immediately before the collision (300 to 400 feet before reaching the railroad crossing), casts serious doubt upon the State’s circumstantial proof that the train was “plainly visible” from defendant’s perspective at the time he encountered the railroad crossing on the night of the collision. Under these circumstances, I cannot go along with the majority in saying that the evidence is sufficient to authorize defendant’s conviction for violating OCGA § 40-6-140 (a) (3). See McKinney v. State, 204 Ga. App. 323, *806324 (1), 325 (419 SE2d 339).
Decided July 12, 1995
E. Kontz Bennett, Jr., for appellant.
Douglas Gibson, Solicitor, Andrew C. Spivey, Assistant Solicitor, for appellee.