Question

Jack Black was badly injured at a railroad crossing when an Amtrak train hit his car.  A video camera on site will show that Jack did not stop at the stop sign before attempting to cross the tracks.  The railroad crossing was marked with a stop sign and a railroad-crossing symbol but there were no flashing lights.  The industry safety standard is to have a stop sign, a railroad-crossing symbol andflashing lights.  Jack would like to file a lawsuit against Amtrak alleging negligence in the design and maintenance of the crossing.  

Advise Jack about the likelihood of success in his lawsuit.  In your answer, analyze all elements of a tort claim, focusing particularly on causation (causation in fact and the "proximate cause" test).   

Answer 1

The industry safety standards stipulated flashing lights in addition to a stop sign and a railroad-crossing symbol. But in the given situation, there were no flashing lights. So there has been violation of industry safety standards.

As per the Restatement ( Second ) of Torts, negligence is defined as ' conduct that falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm '.

The following five elements need to be present in order to constitute negligence:

• A duty of care owed by the defendant ( Amtrak) to the plaintiff ( Jack Black ).
• A breach of the aforementioned duty.
• Actual causal connection between the defendant's breach and the harm to the plaintiff.
• Proximate cause, i.e, whether the harm could have been foreseen and,
• Damages as a result of the defendant's conduct.

Jack's injury was due to the fact that he did not stop at the stop sign. But that was not the proximate or primary cause of his loss. The proximate cause was that there were no flashing lights to draw his attention or warn him.

In the given situation, all the five elements are in Jack's favor. Therefore, Jack's likelihood of success in his lawsuit is very high.