Court Opinion

ID: 9628618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:26:58.603633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:11:04.166623
License: Public Domain

PHELPS Chief Justice and UDALL Justice
(dissenting).
We are of the opinion that on the record presented to it in this “blocked crossing” case, the trial court properly directed a *321verdict for the defendant as there was no real issue of fact for the jury to determine.
It is the unquestioned law in this jurisdiction that there are three essential elements involved in every case of actionable negligence: “(1) The existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect the plaintiff from the injury of which he complains; (2) a failure by the defendant to perform that duty; (3) an injury proximately resulting to the plaintiff from such failure * * Dungan v. Brandenberg, 72 Ariz. 47, 50, 230 P.2d 518, 521; City of Phoenix v. Lopez, 77 Ariz. 146, 268 P.2d 323; Crouse v. Wilbur-Ellis Co., 77 Ariz. 359, 272 P.2d 352. In the last two cases we quoted with approval another statement of the rule by the Maryland Court, viz.:
“ * * * In every instance, before negligence can be predicated of a given act, back of the act must be sought and found a duty to the individual complaining, the observance of which duty would have averted or avoided the injury * * West Virginia Cent. & P. Ry. Co. v. State, 96 Md. 652, 54 A. 669, 671, 61 L.R.A. 574.
We have searched the record in a vain effort to find precisely what duty it is claimed the defendant railroad company owed to plaintiff that was violated. Certainly the majority opinion throws no light upon this crucial question. Apparently the decision turns upon the conflict of evidence rule; we quote the only basis given for the reversal:
“A review of the evidence in this case discloses a difference of opinion between the witnesses as to the conditions existing at the time of the accident. One witness stating that under the conditions then existing neither the cross-arm signal showing the presence of the crossing or the box car itself was visible until one was within twenty-five feet of the train * *
It was then held that the facts being in dispute, it was a proper matter for the jury’s determination. We submit that this is a most superficial analysis of the problem presented by the appeal, as it wholly fails to come to grips with the essential elements of negligence, supra.
It should be noted that we are not dealing with a situation in which the train and automobile were simultaneously approaching the crossing, hence the matter of sufficient warning of the train’s approach is not an issue. Attention, however, is called to the fact that the front and rear headlights on the locomotive were both on, as were also the ground lights, and it was the box car next to the locomotive that was struck broadside by plaintiff’s automobile.
*322This is a blocked crossing case. As was stated in Doty v. Southern Pac. Co., 59 Ariz. 449, 453, 129 P.2d 991, 992:
“It is almost universally held that usually, when the driver of an automobile runs into a train standing still across a highway, no recovery can be had by the driver for damages caused by the collision. But there is an exception to this rule. When the railroad company has failed to give such notice of the presence of the track and train as a reasonably prudent man would be expected to give Under the* particular circumstances, it is guilty of negligence and the question of liability is one for a jury. * * * ”
The allegations of the complaint in regard to negligence may be summarized as follows: after alleging generally that the collision was directly and proximately caused by the carelessness, recklessness, and wanton negligence of the defendants, it was specifically charged that there was wanton negligence in that (a) there was no illumination at said crossing, (b) there were no signals or lights therein situated' at said track to warn of the presence of said train, and (c) there was no guard stationed at the crossing. It is significant that the majority take no stock in these specific charges of negligence, doubtless because there is no statute or regulation making such a requirement of defendant. The crossarm sign was the only warning required by law to be placed at this crossing. As' we said in Canion v. Southern Pacific Co., 52 Ariz, 245, 252, 80 P.2d 397, 400:
“There is no suggestion that there was any order or regulation of either the Interstate Commerce Commission, or the Arizona Corporation Commission, requiring a watchman or automatic signal to be maintained at the crossing in question, and unless there is affirmative evidence showing that reasonable care would require such warning to be maintained, we think it was not negligence for the railroad company to fail to maintain a watchman or automatic signal at the crossing. The proper authorities have the power, in case they think a crossing is particularly dangerous, to require special precaution to be taken by the railroad company at such crossing, but in the absence of a regulation to that effect, we think the failure of the company to guard a crossing in that manner is not, as a matter of law, negligence.”
Where the accident occurred is an old established crossing. Both the highway and the railroad tracks are straight, and they cross at right angles, and, except for the slight incline, there is no obstruction of vision. It is conceded that the railroad cars used in the switching operation completely blocked the crossing and • that a standard warning crossarm signal was in *323place. The accident occurred at 1:30 a. m. on a dark night but with no unusual atmospheric conditions. Plaintiff — aged 24 years — admitted that he was familiar with the crossing. His whole reliance for recovery is that he did not see the box car hit by his automobile until he was right onto it. Applying the tests announced in the Doty, Cope and Renfroe cases — cited with approval in the majority opinion — it is our view that the only possible reasonable conclusion is that had the plaintiff been driving with due care and caution, under the circumstances no accident would have occurred. Possibly the lack of sobriety (the usual “two beers”) gives the answer to plaintiff’s misfortune. It must be remembered that the test to apply here is not what the plaintiff saw or did not see, but what a reasonably prudent person would have seen under similar circumstances. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Renfroe, 77 Ariz. 28, 266 P.2d 745. It inevitably follows that under these conditions the defendant fulfilled its duty and was not negligent. The learned trial court was therefore manifestly correct in directing a verdict. We believe it is a travesty on justice to reverse the judgment and send the case back for a new trial where the ultimate outcome— if the trial court courageously does its duty — is a foregone conclusion.
The judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.
PHELPS, C. J., and UDALL, J., concur.