0a578ca6-9992-4285-869a-2f18bba60eac.doc
page 252
Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Ry. Co., Supreme Court of LA, 1962 Was D’s excessive speed the cause of the accident? Issue Reasoning Rule
Negligence is not actionable
Facts
(1) P was approaching a train track in a car driven by Joe Foreman but the view was obstructed by a 500-foot long warehouse. A train was also approaching toward the intersection and similarly, the view of the trainman was obstructed by the warehouse. The trainmen had been through the intersection before and were aware of the obstruction.
Joe Foreman was driving 3-4 to 20-25 miles per hour. And he was negligent in driving in front of the train and his negligene was a proximate cause of the accident. Burden of causation proof is on P. The speed would undoubtedly be a factor in briging about the accident if the accident wouldn’t have occurred without the speed. Based on the evidence, it appears that even if the train was going at the right speed, the accident was unavoidable. So, the speed was not a substantial factor in bringing about the accident. P did not prove that negligence of D was the cause of the accident that caused the death.
Unless it is cause in fact
It need not be the sole cause
Substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
of the harm for which recovery is sought.
(2) To warn the public of approiachign trains, a swinging red light and bell were installed at the intersection – the light was operating at the time. At the intersection, a RR stop sign and and interestion stop sign were also installed. As it approached, the trains’s whistle was blowing, it’s bell was ringing, and it’s lights burning. (4) The train engineer tried to stop the train when they were 30-40 feet from the car – the train dragged the car for 1250 ft killing both passengers.
Held Procedure P argues D argues
Reversed. (however trainmen negligent of operating at 12 mph above speed limit) Trial court and Court of Appeal found for P. D appeals. Had the train been traveling at a slower speed, they would have had more time to get out of the way and avoid the accident.
0a578ca6-9992-4285-869a-2f18bba60eac.doc
page 252
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Louisiana Court of Appeal affirming the judgment of the trial court awarding damages to plaintiff in a negligence action. OVERVIEW: Defendant's train was traveling eastbound and driver's automobile was traveling southbound. Decedent was a guest passenger was riding in the front seat of automobile with driver. A warehouse obstructed the view of both driver and train. Proceeding east, the train approached the intersection with its headlight burning, its bell ringing, and its whistle blowing. The train struck the right side of the automobile, and the two occupants were killed. The speed of the automobile was undetermined. The train was speeding. Parties conceded that driver was negligent in driving upon the track in front of the train and that his negligence was a proximate cause of the death of decedent. The district court awarded damages to plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed finding defendant was negligent in operating the train in excess of the speed limit. The supreme court reversed holding defendant's negligence was not a cause in fact. OUTCOME: Judgment reversed; plaintiff failed to show that defendant's negligence in travelling at an excessive speed was a substantial factor in bringing about the accident because the record reflected that the fatal accident would have occurred irrespective of the excessive speed of the train.
HN1
HN2
HN3
HN4 HN5
HN6
The violation by trainmen of the railroad's own speed regulations adopted in the interest of safety is evidence of negligence. More Like This Headnote Negligence is not actionable unless it is a cause in fact of the harm for which recovery is sought. It need not, of course, be the sole cause. More Like This Headnote Negligence is a cause in fact of the harm to another if it was a substantial factor in bringing about that harm. More Like This Headnote The burden of proving causation in fact is upon the plaintiff. More Like This Headnote The fact of causation is not susceptible of proof to a mathematical certainty, the law requires only that the evidence show that it is more probable than not that the harm was caused by the tortious conduct of the defendant. More Like This Headnote It must appear that it is more likely than not that the harm would have been averted but for the negligence of the defendant. More Like This Headnote