Question

10. Michelle Wightman was driving toward a railroad crossing at which the gates were down and the lights flashing. Wightman noted a stopped train a short distance from the gate. Believing the stopped train to be the cause of the closed gate, she drove around the gate and was struck and killed by a train that suddenly appeared from behind the stopped train. The stopped train had blocked her view of the oncoming train. Both trains were owned and operated by Consolidated Rail Corporation (CRC). Wightman's mother brought a wrongful death lawsuit and a survivorship action against CRC. In response, CRC claimed that Wightman's action of driving around the gates, in violation of both state and city law regarding the operation of a motor vehicle at a railroad crossing, constituted negligence on her part. Furthermore, CRC argued that if Wightman had not crossed the tracks, she would not have been struck by the train. Therefore, her actions were the sole cause of the accident, and the railroad corporation should not be held liable for her death. The attorney for the plaintiff argued that the placement of the first train, blocking the view of the other track, contributed to the accident and that CRC should be held liable for Wightman's death. Should Wightman's own negligence be a complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery of damages in this case? Explain. [See: Wightman v. Consolidated Railroad Corporation, 640 N.E.2d 1160 (OH).]

Answer 1

No, Wightman's own negligence should not be complete bar to the plaintiff's recovery of damages.

Facts of the present case:

1. A conrail train, SEEL-7, experience mechanic failure and stopped approx 280 meters from the grade crossing, this activated flashing lights and gates.

2. Witnesses therein stated that he first observed train standing about 90 minutes prior to crash, whereas train's crew estimated time of 30-60 mins.

3. Train crew noticed gate arms down and traffic jam and congestion. They recognized that a dangerous situation existed at the crossing. However, they decided not to post a flagman at the crossing and instead both walked length of train, trying to fix the train.

4. The train was blocking the view of other track and the collision could have been easily avoided by posting a flagman at the crossing to stop the traffic while the train was approaching, slowing the speed of train or blocking the crossing with SEEL-7 engine when the train was approaching.

5. Dr. Berg, a civil engineer with special interest in grade-crossing safety gave a testimony, where he stated," that the gates at the crossing have been known for decades for closing for unusual length and drivers usually proceed over the crossing. He testified that danger of accident is particularly great while there is an obstruction on the track. Furthermore, he testified that a large number of collision that occur every year at grid crossing happen under "Substantially similar" conditions to those of this case.

Judgement: Considering the circumstances and negligence on the part CRC, the crash could have been easily avoided. Regardless of Wighman's negligence, the grid crossing was closed for longer than usual and the train crew could have arranged for posting a flagman, since similar incidences have incurred in the past as well, it demands for extra caution on CRC end, whereas they did nothing to avoid any such incidences.

Thus this is mere negligence on CRC part and Wightman's plea for recovery of damages was sustained. CRC was heavily penalised.