Caseflicks

Supreme Court of the United States • 1934

Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.

292 U.S. 98 | 54 S. Ct. 580 | 78 L. Ed. 1149 | 1934 U.S. LEXIS 701 | 91 A.L.R. 1049

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, when a crossing blocks a driver’s view, reasonable care ordinarily depends on the circumstances; a court cannot automatically require the driver to get out and look.

Background

John Pokora drove his truck toward a railroad crossing in Springfield, Illinois. He stopped and looked for trains, but boxcars on a nearby switch track blocked his view of the main track. He heard no bell or whistle. As he drove across, a passenger train struck his truck and injured him.

Pokora sued the railway. The District Court directed a verdict for the railway, holding that Pokora was contributorily negligent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Goodman.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether Pokora was contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he did not get out of his truck to survey the tracks before crossing.

Holding

No. Whether Pokora acted with reasonable care was for the jury, not the court.

Reasoning

The railway bore the burden of proving contributory negligence. It did not conclusively show that Pokora could see the approaching train while he still had time to stop safely. By the time the boxcars no longer blocked his view, his truck may already have been in the train’s path.

Pokora stopped, looked, and listened before proceeding. A jury could consider both his obstructed view and the absence of a bell or whistle when deciding whether it was reasonable for him to continue. The Court did not decide whether drivers must stop at crossings generally; Pokora had stopped, and a later stop might not have helped.

Getting out to survey the tracks was not an ordinary precaution that a court could require as a rule of law. It might accomplish little: a train could approach while the driver returned to the vehicle and began crossing. Leaving the truck near the tracks could also create danger.

Goodman did not control. There, the driver had a clear view of an approaching train and failed to look. Its further suggestion that a driver with an obstructed view must get out and survey the tracks was unnecessary to the result. The Court limited that suggestion rather than treating it as a fixed legal duty.