Mehring v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Amass, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. At Kingsdale Station in the State of Pennsylvania, on the morning of Aovember 23rd, 1927, in broad daylight, David H. TIehring, plaintiff and appellant, drove his Pord truck on the track of the defendant in front of a train which he saw approaching at the distance of about 225 feet, and, according to his testimony, coming at full speed. He had been familiar with this crossing for many years and drove over it frequently. According to plaintiff’s testimony no warning of the approach of the train was given by either whistle or bell.

Plaintiff had his truck in low gear, was going up-grade, and was driving at the rate of four miles an hour. The truck was in good condition and the brakes in good working order. At this crossing the tracks are about nine feet above the general level of the county road and the approach from the level to the track is about fifty feet up-grade. At the foot of this grade, fifty feet from the track, plaintiff stopped his truck, got out on the running board and looked and listened for a train, but he neither heard nor saw anything.

At that point he had at most a view of 400 feet. He then proceeded toward the crossing, continuing to look and listen, according to his testimony, but his view was obstructed hv trees and buildings until the front wheels of the truck were within a ³¹² foot Or two of the rail, -when he first saw the approching train at the distance above mentioned. In the meantime he had not stopped again. Instead of stopping and backing when he saw the train, he tried to get across, and the rear of his truck was struck.

The truck was wrecked and hé was injured, and he sued the defendant. This appeal is from a judgment in favor of defendant on a directed verdict. There are two exceptions in the record; one to the disallowance of the following question asked one of the plaintiff’s witnesses: “Do you know whereabouts the public in traveling this mill road stop as they approach the railroad going from east to west?”; and the other to the refusal of plaintiff’s prayers and the granting of defendant’s demurrer prayer. We find no error in either of these rulings.

The answer expected to the disallowed question was that the usual place for stopping was at the foot of the grade where plaintiff stopped. The answer could have availed plaintiff nothing. It is perfectly obvious that to stop at a place fifty feet from the crossing, where the view up the track was limited to 400 feet, when the greatest speed plaintiff could make going up that grade in low gear was four miles an hour, even if it were the place where people were accustomed to stop, was not .a compliance with the law that one approaching á railroad crossing where the view is obstructed must stop, look, and listen at a place where an approaching train can be seen or heard far enough away to prevent a collision. The directed verdict on the ground of contributory negligence would have been proper under our decisions on the other facts of this case, even if plaintiff had not seen the train before he attempted to cross, because, according to his own testimony, if he had stopped his truck a few feet from the track and walked ahead, he would have had an unobstructed view up the track for several thousand feet, and could have avoided the accident.

Manfuso v. Western Md. Ry. Co., 102 Md. 257 ; Annapolis, W. & B. R. Co. v. State, use of Hickox, 104 Md. 659 ; Brehm v. Phila., B. & W. R. Co., 114 Md. 302 ; Glick v. Cumberland &