Overview
Case summary
This railroad crossing case arose from an accident at Moyer's Switch in the Indian Territory. Plaintiff W.N. Barker, while driving an ox team across defendant railroad's tracks, was struck by a freight train and injured. The crossing had obstructed views due to piles of railroad ties. Barker, familiar with the crossing, looked and listened 180 feet east of the crossing, then proceeded without stopping again, relying on the usual crossing signal. When 12 feet from the track, he saw the approaching train, tried to stop his oxen but was struck. The railroad appealed the jury verdict for Barker, arguing he was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for not stopping to listen between crossings. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding contributory negligence was a jury question. The majority reasoned travelers at obstructed crossings may rely on proper signals from railroads, and the duty to stop depends on circumstances. Judge Sanborn dissented, arguing Barker exercised no care and ordinary care would have prevented the accident.
Abstract
Plaintiff driving an ox team across a railroad crossing with obstructed views was struck by a train after looking and listening from a distance but proceeding without stopping again, relying on the usual crossing signals. The railroad appealed the jury verdict for plaintiff, arguing contributory negligence as a matter of law, but the appellate court affirmed, holding it was a jury question given the circumstances and reliance on signals. A dissent argued plaintiff exercised no care and ordinary care would have prevented the accident.
Opinion of the court
opinionTHAYER, Circuit Judgejoined by CALDWELL, Circuit Judge
- Contributory negligence not established as matter of law
- Traveler may rely on railroad giving proper crossing signals
- Duty to stop and listen depends on circumstances
- Jury properly determined whether conditions required stopping
Dissenting opinions
1Jurisdiction
not challenged- Case originated in Indian Territory
- Appeal to Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Procedural posture
- Whether trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for defendant on contributory negligence grounds
Legal categories
Case record
Issues & holdings
De novo for legal questions, but jury determination reviewed for sufficiency of evidence
Contributory negligence not established as matter of law; question properly for jury
Issue preserved for review
Holdings of the court
Error analysis
- Trial court refused to direct verdict for defendant on contributory negligence grounds — procedural · no error foundNot applicable - no error found · not applicable
Burden of proof
Standards of review
- Whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent as matter of law — de novo Court reviews legal question of whether evidence required directed verdict
Timeline
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit issues opinion affirming trial court
Outcome: Judgment affirmed
Final disposition of appeal
Plaintiff unloaded ties east of spur track, looked and listened for trains, saw/heard none
Plaintiff took initial precautions before approaching crossing
Plaintiff rode wagon back toward main crossing, seated on reach, wagon rattling, did not stop to listen between crossings
Key factual issue - whether failure to stop constituted contributory negligence
Train approached from north at 20+ mph, engineer sounded warning whistle at 252 feet from crossing
Timing of warning signal disputed
Plaintiff saw train when 12 feet from track, jumped to stop oxen, oxen struck by train throwing plaintiff
Accident and injury occurred
Jury trial in United States Court in Indian Territory
Outcome: Verdict for plaintiff Barker
Trial court judgment appealed
Facts & evidence
Incident
Key facts
8 facts- Plaintiff W.N. Barker was driving ox team across railroad tracks when struck by defendant's freight train
- Accident occurred at crossing where highway crossed main track and spur track
- Piles of railroad ties obstructed view to north between spur track crossing and main track crossing
- Plaintiff had been hauling ties for three months and knew crossing signals
- Train was running 20+ mph, gave warning whistle at 252 feet from crossing
- Plaintiff looked and listened 180 feet east of crossing, saw/heard no train
- Plaintiff did not stop between crossings to listen again, relied on usual crossing signal
- When 12 feet from track, saw train, jumped to stop oxen but was struck
Disputed questions
- Whether crossing signal was given at usual point 500 yards north of crossing
Evidence in the record
- Plaintiff's testimony about looking/listening before approaching crossing
- Plaintiff's testimony about not hearing train until 252 feet away
- Testimony about obstructed view from ties
- Plaintiff's testimony
- Ten witnesses testified about whistles sounded by engine
- Defendant's testimony about giving crossing signal
- Whether crossing signal was given at usual point
- Evidence type: Testimony about whether crossing signal was given · Challenge basis: Credibility and conflicting accounts · Trial court ruling: admitted · Reasoning: Conflicting evidence creates jury question · Challenged on appeal: true · Appellate outcome: affirmed
Jury
- Instructions on contributory negligence (implied)
Objects of relevance
Authorities
Cited authorities (4)
Related cases (4)
Statutes
- Common law negligence principles
Standards & doctrines
- Reasonable care standard for travelers
- Contributory negligence doctrine
Legal principles applied
- Traveler may rely on railroad giving proper crossing signals
- Duty to stop and listen depends on circumstances, not absolute rule