Question

Sixteen-year-old Michelle Portman was out driving at night near Sandusky, Ohio with her friend Katie Webster in the front passenger seat. They came to a railroad crossing with multiple tracks, where the mechanical arm had descended and warning bells were sounding. A Conrail train had suffered mechanical problems and was stopped 200 hundred feet from the crossing, where it had been stalled for close to an hour. Michelle and Katie saw several cars ahead of them go around the barrier and cross the tracks, despite the fact that Ohio’s vehicle and traffic laws prohibited this practice. Michelle had to decide whether she would do the same.
Long before Michelle made her decision, the train’s engineer (a Conrail employee) had seen the heavy Saturday night traffic crossing the tracks and realized the danger. The conductor and brakeman also understood the peril, but rather than posting a flagman who could have stopped traffic when a train approached, they walked to the far end of their train to repair the mechanical problem. A police officer had come upon the scene, told his dispatcher to notify the train’s parent company Conrail of the situation, and left.
Michelle made the decision to cross the tracks. She slowly followed the cars ahead of her. Seconds later, both girls were dead. A freight train traveling 60 miles per hour struck the vehicle broadside, killing Michelle and Katie instantly.
Michelle’s mother sued Conrail for negligence. The company argued that it was Michelle’s decision, one that violated Ohio traffic laws, which led to her death. Ohio is a comparative negligence state. Discuss both the plaintiff’s claim and Conrail’s defense. What verdict will result?

Please answer in the IRAC format.

Issue

Rule

Analysis

Conclusion

Answer 1

Issue: Will Michelle’s mother be able to win the suit against Conrail for negligence overcoming the defenses?

Rule: According to comparative negligence, the plaintiff can collect the damages even though the plaintiff was at fault and the amount of fault would be limited by the party’s actual degree of fault. The comparative negligence law in Ohio follow 50 percent rule which states a party who is 50 percent or more responsible for the injuries cannot recover any damages.

Analysis: In this case both Michelle and Conrail are at fault. Michelle has violated the Ohio traffic rules and Conrail was negligent in controlling the traffic across the rail road crossing though they have noticed that mechanical arm has descended. The degree of fault would determine the verdict. While analyzing the facts we can see that Conrail was faultier as their negligence in controlling the traffic could have caused more injuries and they have breached their duty understanding the possible harm. The train’s engineer, conductor and brakeman has already understood the danger but they did not try to post a flagman and went to repair the mechanical problem leaving the vehicle passengers crossing the rail in danger. The police officer also did not take any action and left the place breaching his duty towards public safety. Michelle has taken the decision to cross the rail road under frustration after seeing the negligence from all these people. There were many vehicles crossing the rail road breaking the traffic law and she just followed them thinking that the decision would do good for them. But the train came and both girls died. While comparing the fault of others including the policeman and the Conrail employees, the fault done by Michelle by crossing the rail is very less. Hence the fault on Michelle’s side is obviously less than 50 percent and Conrail’s defense of violation of traffic law would not stay in front of the negligence they have committed. The court would decide on Michelle’s percentage of fault and award the damages.

Conclusion: According to Comparative negligence rule, Michelle’s mother would win the suit and would be awarded damages minus the percent caused by Michelle’s negligence.