|
Personal Injury Lawyer Robert (Tito) Meyer, Las Cruces New Mexico
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Facts: On evening of December 23, 1994, William Benally was driving his brother's pick up and William Largo
was his passenger. They were driving North on a gravel road near Coolidge in McKinley County, returning from a shopping trip. Apparently, Benally had not driven on that road before. It
was dark, clear, and dry.
As they approached a railroad crossing, a westbound train was coming at about 70 miles per hour, below the legal speed limit set by federal law. The train's
engineer said he sounded the horn as usual as they approached the crossing. The conductor later said they saw the pick up and it looked like the car was slowing down and possibly going to stop,
and just before we got to the crossing, the car took a surge and just jumped out in front of the train. The evidence at the scene suggested the pick up was struck just as it started over the
train's path.
Death Leads To Lawsuit: Benally was killed, and Largo was injured. Largo and the Personal Representative (PR) of Benally's Estate sued the Atchison,
Topeka And Santa Fe Railway Co. (Railroad) and the engineer, alleging negligence. Benally's PR (but not Largo) settled with the Defendants.
Largo presented the following
evidence. The crossing in this case is less than a mile north of Interstate 40. The approach from the south involves a curve, an acute angle, and a hump profile at the crossing itself, all
of which make it more difficult for a driver to see a train approaching from the east. Because of the acute angle of the approach, a driver might not see an approaching westbound train while
looking straight ahead through his windshield, but would only see it by looking through a rear window. There had been three prior train-vehicle collisions similar to this one at the crossing, in
which vehicles heading north were struck by westbound trains. At the time of the accident, there were no warning lights or gates at the crossing. The crossing was marked only with crossbuck
signs, reflective black-and-white signs indicating an "X" and stating, "RAILROAD CROSSING." There was also a small yellow reflective warning sign 100 feet south of the
crossing. There were two train-vehicle collisions at the crossing, including this one, in a nine-month period, out of less than twenty-five per year in all of New Mexico. The McKinley
County sheriff's office responded to citizens' concerns about the dangerousness of the crossing and noted that, because of the angle of approach, drivers would not see a train until they were
0.1 mile from the crossing. Most or all of the other highly traveled McKinley County road crossings had mechanical warning devices. Several years after this accident, gates and flashing
lights were installed.
At the Defendants' request, the Judge entered >Summary Judgment' for the Defendants and against Largo on Largo's claims that the warnings at the railroad
crossing were inadequate and that the train was traveling too fast under the circumstances. The Judge decided, given that Largo's negligence claims were based on state law, Largo's
claims were preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act, 49 U.S.C. Section 20101.
Plaintiff Largo appealed, and the New Mexico Court of Appeals recently decided that the excessive speed
claim is preempted by federal law, but Largo's claim that the warnings at the crossing were inadequate is not preempted, and the Railroad had a duty to maintain adequate warnings.
Federal Law Does Not Preempt State Law: This is the first time I can remember that a New Mexico Court has said that a railroad can ever have any responsibility for adequately warning of the
railroad's crossings at highways and roads. It seems like the railroads have always been able to escape responsibility by hiding behind federal laws.
But Not Always:
This court decision does not say that railroads are responsible for the warnings at all railroad/highway crossings. It seems to depend mostly on whether any federal money paid for any of the warnings at the crossing!
This is what the Court of Appeals said. U.S. Supreme Court decisions make it clear that federal law preempts state law only when federal funds are actually spent on warning
devices. In the case at bar, the record does not establish that any federal money was spent installing warning devices at the crossing. In 1978, a federal program provided $2,056 to widen
and install sixteen track feet of timber planking at the crossing. However, the record indicates that no warnings were placed at the crossing as the result of the federal program. The
minimal level of federal involvement at this crossing does not cover or substantially subsume >the same subject matter as [state] negligence law pertaining to the maintenance of, and the
operations of trains at, grade crossings. [quoting the U.S. Supreme Court]
We hold that because federal funds were not actually used to install warning devices at the crossing, preemption
does not bar Plaintiff's state law claim that warnings were inadequate. We reverse summary judgment for Defendants on this claim and remand it for trial.
Railroad Can Be Responsible For Crossing Warnings:
The Railroad then argued that they have no duty to install and maintain adequate warning devices at railroad crossings because New Mexico's state statutes give the state highway department and county and city road departments exclusive authority to place warning devices. The Court of Appeals disagreed: We do not agree with Defendants that Section 66-7-108 prohibits the Railroad from insuring that there are adequate warnings at railroad crossings, or that the legislature intended to absolve railroads of all responsibility for warnings at railroad crossings. Instead, this statute has the obvious purpose of prohibiting false or unofficial traffic signs. While this and other statutes cited by Defendants may place primary responsibility with governmental entities, they do not prohibit railroads from addressing dangerous crossings.
In addition, railroads have a common-law duty to provide and adequately maintain warnings at railroad crossings. While final authority for the installation of particular safety devices at
grade crossings has long rested with state and local governments, this allocation of authority apparently does not relieve the railroads of their duty to take all reasonable precautions to maintain
grade crossing safety. . . . [quoting the U.S. Supreme Court]
Common Sense: The Court of Appeals also appealed to common sense. Railroad employees are in the best position to
evaluate difficulties at crossings and to identify crossings that have presented problems because they use the crossings every day. Railroads also have superior knowledge about accidents at
particular crossings, because they must deal with insurance claims and lawsuits arising out of those accidents. Public policy and common sense dictate that when railroads become aware of
particular hazards and dangerous conditions, they should at a minimum be required to notify the appropriate governmental authorities that improvements are necessary. We reject Defendants'
argument that railroads have no duty whatsoever to do anything about hazardous crossings.
Maybe this court decision will encourage the railroads to join in the battle to reduce the appalling
number of railroad crossing accidents and deaths that happen in New Mexico every year. If you want to read the court decision, it is LARGO vs. THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY,
and J.P. BIGLEY, 2002-NMCA-021.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information contained in this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
Copyright © 2008 by Robert (Tito) Meyer, Personal Injury Lawyer, Las Cruces NM. All rights reserved.
|
|
Web Design & Hosting by Art Schobey Interactive - Las Cruces
|
|
|
