Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Ellison

Citations: 250 Ark. 160; 465 S.W.2d 85; 1971 Ark. LEXIS 1236Docket: 5-5486

Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; March 15, 1971; Arkansas; State Supreme Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalConcurrence Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal has been filed by the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company regarding a judgment awarding damages to James E. Ellison and East Texas Motor Freight Lines following a train-truck collision on March 4, 1969, at a railroad crossing in Benton, Arkansas. Ellison, a truck driver for East Texas, drove onto the tracks and was struck by a freight train. He claimed negligence on the part of Missouri Pacific for not maintaining a proper lookout and failing to provide statutory signals. East Texas intervened for damages to its vehicle, while Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company sought subrogation for workmen’s compensation benefits paid to Ellison.

Missouri Pacific denied negligence, attributing the collision to Ellison's failure to keep a proper lookout due to being blinded by the sun. The railroad counterclaimed for damages to its locomotive and expenses paid to its injured brakeman, Woodrow Utley, under the Federal Employers Liability Act, alleging that East Texas refused to participate in a settlement with Utley.

At trial, the jury apportioned negligence as 60% to Missouri Pacific and 40% to Ellison, awarding Ellison $39,000 and East Texas $1,980. Missouri Pacific's counterclaim was dismissed, and the railroad appeals on several grounds, including the denial of a directed verdict in its favor and the dismissal of its counterclaim. Missouri Pacific argues that Ellison's claim relied on the assertion that he was excused from maintaining a lookout due to being blinded by the sun, which it contends should absolve them of liability, citing a precedent case with notable differences from the current case.

Mr. Binkley did not specify the duration it took him to reach the collision site from the road but noted that his visibility was impaired by the sun when he left the road. He acknowledged that while the engineer did everything possible to avoid the accident, Missouri Pacific contended that the slick, muddy approach to the crossing was the cause of the collision, and that Binkley was contributorily negligent for not being cautious before entering the track. Binkley countered that navigating the slippery surface required full attention, leaving no time to look for trains. 

The case differed from prior cases since Binkley was suing solely for property damage, meaning any contributory negligence would bar recovery under existing law. A jury found Ellison, the engineer, 40% negligent, which supported the trial court's rejection of Missouri Pacific's motion for a directed verdict. The court also refused to adopt Missouri Pacific's requested jury instruction that would limit the jury's consideration of the train's signals based on the train's visibility. Instead, the court provided an instruction acknowledging a state statute requiring trains to signal when approaching crossings, indicating that a violation of this statute could be considered evidence of negligence alongside other case facts. Missouri Pacific's proposed instruction would have significantly altered this understanding by suggesting that the train's signals would not be relevant if the train was visible.

Missouri Pacific contends that the court's refusal to provide a specific jury instruction hindered the jury's ability to consider that the train was in plain view, supported by witness testimony that some heard the train's noise from up to a quarter of a mile away. However, the court found that the other instructions, including AMI No. 1804, sufficiently guided the jury's consideration. Missouri Pacific's proposed instruction No. A, if accepted, would have potentially excluded from the jury's negligence assessment the evidence of the company's failure to sound the whistle or bell as mandated by statute, even if the engineer had seen the truck approaching the crossing. The court noted that the visibility conditions, particularly with the sun setting, underscored the necessity of sounding the warning signals. Missouri Pacific's reliance on the Kansas City Southern Ry Co. v. Baker case was deemed misplaced, as that case involved clear evidence that the plaintiff had seen the train and attempted to cross in front of it. The court clarified that in Baker, the need for warning signals was not negated merely because the train was visible. Furthermore, Missouri Pacific argued that the trial court erred in granting plaintiff's instruction No. 15 (AMI No. 1802), which stated that train operators must maintain a lookout for individuals near the tracks, asserting that this standard placed a lesser duty on them than their modified instruction No. 3, which included "property" in addition to "persons." The instruction was given alongside another that stated defendants could recover damages if they were not found negligent. Missouri Pacific highlighted that engineer Wilson had seen Ellison’s truck when it was approximately 1400 to 1500 feet from the crossing, with the truck about 200 to 250 feet away, traveling at 20 to 25 miles per hour.

Engineer Wilson testified that when the train was about 200-250 feet from the crossing, he noticed that Ellison, approaching from the left, was not going to stop and yelled for fireman Armstrong to activate the emergency brakes. Armstrong, acting as engineer at the time of the collision, noted that he first saw Ellison's truck-trailer approximately 200 feet from the crossing, traveling at about 25 miles per hour and seemingly slowing down. Both Wilson and Armstrong closely observed the truck, which appeared to be stopping as it neared the crossing but ultimately did not. Witnesses, including Ellison, claimed they did not hear the usual train signals, leading to the possibility that Wilson and Utley did not see the truck until it was too late to react. The trial court found that there was no reversible error in giving the lookout instruction and dismissed Missouri Pacific's counterclaim against Utley, citing a lack of causal connection between Utley's injury and Ellison's negligence. After the collision, Wilson reported the train traveled about 1900 feet before stopping, while Utley, responsible for flagging, sustained an injury to his calf while hopping over a ditch to call for assistance.

Missouri Pacific Railroad's claim against East Texas Motor Freight for contributions related to a settlement paid to employee W. W. Utley was contested in court. East Texas argued for a directed verdict, asserting that Utley's injuries were not proximately caused by their negligence in the collision. The court, after examining the evidence, found insufficient grounds for a jury to determine East Texas's liability. It was noted that Utley's potential cause of action against East Texas was irrelevant to the railroad's voluntary settlement with him. The trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on Utley’s claim was upheld, as it did not affect the outcome. The court defined proximate cause, concluding that Utley's injuries resulted from actions unrelated to the collision, specifically his movement to speak with a filling station attendant far from the incident site. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding no harmful error in the proceedings.