No. 13352
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
OR F F
1976
ELIZA W V R Y ROBERTS, i n d i v i d u a l l y
AEL
and a s Administrator of t h e E s t a t e r"
__- _ -
----- _-
.d
of Stephen Paul Roberts, Deceased -
and Doris Roberts,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD
COMPANY, I N C . ,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants :
Anderson, Symmes, Forbes, P e e t e and Brown,
B i l l i n g s , Montana
Rockwood Brown argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For Respondent:
Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Gallagher and Toole,
B i l l i n g s , Montana
Jack Ramirez argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: October 19, 1976
Decided: R O V 3 O 1976
Hon. Jack L. Green, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r M r . J u s t i c e
Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court:
This i s a wrongful death and s u r v i v a l a c t i o n f i l e d by t h e
p a r e n t s and personal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o recover damages a r i s i n g
from t h e death of Stephen Paul Roberts, age 16. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
Yellowstone County, granted summary judgment on defendant's motion.
The accident occurred on March 20, 1972 a t approximately
7:40 p.m. a t a p o i n t w i t h i n t h e c i t y l i m i t s of Laurel, Montana,
where a spur t r a c k of Burlington Northern Railroad which runs i n
a g e n e r a l north-south d i r e c t i o n , c r o s s e s Railroad S t r e e t , which
l i e s i n a g e n e r a l east-west d i r e c t i o n . The c r o s s i n g i s located
528 f e e t o r approximately one-tenth of a mile from t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n
of Railroad S t r e e t and F i r s t Avenue South. The crossing was
marked by a crossbuck, o r r a i l r o a d c r o s s i n g s i g n , painted white
with black l e t t e r i n g . There was no e l e c t r i c s i g n a l b u t a street
l i g h t was located a t t h e n o r t h e a s t corner of t h e c r o s s i n g . The
s t r e e t l i g h t has a bulb with a green r e f l e c t o r and was on a t t h e
time. Railroad S t r e e t i s paved, h e a v i l y t r a v e l e d and almost l e v e l
i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e c r o s s i n g except f o r a s l i g h t i n c l i n e a t
the crossing i t s e l f . The pavement was dry and t h e weather was c l e a r .
Stephen Roberts had l i v e d a l l h i s l i f e i n Laurel and,
a t t h e time, was operating a 350 Yamaha motorcycle which he had
owned one week. H e was i n t h e company of a f r i e n d , Steven Blohm,
who r i d i n g a 250 Suzuki motorcycle.
Defendant was operating a t r a i n u n i t of twenty gondola c a r s ,
with t h e locomotive a t t h e south end, and was backing a c r o s s t h e
crossing i n a northerly direction.
J e r r y Malcomb Jones, a switchman f o r t h e Burlington
Northern, was on t h e lead c a r of t h e t r a i n u n i t p r i o r t o and
a t t h e time of t h e accident. The t r a i n was moving a t a walking
speed, approximately t h r e e miles p e r hour.
A s t h e u n i t approached t h e c r o s s i n g , Jones g o t o f f and
went ahead of t h e t r a i n t o t h e middle of t h e crossing. He was
holding a hand f l a s h l i g h t o r l a n t e r n . N t r a f f i c was coming and
o
a s t h e lead c a r was almost through t h e c r o s s i n g ( t h e f r o n t of t h e
lead gondola c a r was about 314 over t h e c r o s s i n g ) he looked both ways,
saw no approaching t r a f f i c , and climbed back on t h e lead c a r . He
was
had climbed a l l t h e way up and/standing i n s i d e t h e lead gondola
when he saw t h e two motorcycles t u r n from F i r s t Avenue onto R a i l -
road S t r e e t . He s t a r t e d t o wave h i s l a n t e r n and moved s o u t h e r l y
i n s i d e t h e gondola.
The boys had been a t ~ o b e r t s 'home and were on t h e i r way
t o Blohm's home. They turned from F i r s t Avenue and proceeded
on Railroad S t r e e t i n a w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n . They were t r a v e l i n g
a t about f i v e miles per hour a s they made t h e . t u r n . Roberts
then asked Blohm i f he "wanted t o race1'. Blohm d i d n o t respond
and Roberts began t o a c c e l e r a t e more r a p i d l y than usual. Blohm
a l s o a c c e l e r a t e d and t h e boys were racing. A s they proceeded
along Railroad S t r e e t , Roberts s t a r t e d t o p u l l away from Blohm,
and, a t l e a s t p a r t of t h e t i m e . , was glancing back a t Blohm. At
one time, Blohm i n d i c a t e d h i s speed was 30 t o 35 miles per hour and,
a t another time, s t a t e d i t was 35 t o 40 miles per hour. Blohm
glanced up once and saw nothing unusual; he glanced up again and
saw a l i g h t which he thought was a s t r e e t l i g h t ; he glanced up a
t h i r d time and saw a l i g h t about 15 t o 20 f e e t above t h e road and
t o t h e r i g h t of t h e c e n t e r of t h e road, going up and down, b u t
he kept going f a s t e r . He then applied h i s brakes, apparently
seeing t h e white l e t t e r i n g on t h e s i d e of t h e dark, r u s t e d , red
gondola c a r and turned l e f t o f f t h e road between a telephone pole
and t h e r a i l r o a d t r a c k , went i n t o a yard' and drove back up on
t h e road.
P r i o r t o leaving t h e road, he had observed t h e brake
l i g h t come on on Roberts' motorcycle, which braked f o r a d i s t a n c e
of 8 1 f e e t , then went over on i t s s i d e leaving 30 f e e t of scrape
marks and skidded i n t o t h e r e a r wheels of t h e lead gondola. By t h e
impact, Roberts was thrown t o t h e r i g h t and t h e motorcycle t o t h e
left. Roberts was n o t wearing a helmet and received head i n j u r i e s .
The switchman, Jones, estimated t h e motorcycle's speed a t
60 miles per hour before t h e brakes were a p p l i e d and 10 miles
per hour a t t h e t i m e of impact. Highway patrolman Carranco, based
on h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , estimated t h e speed a t 50 miles p e r hour
when t h e brakes were applied. D r . Robert J. McRae, a p r o f e s s o r
of physics a t Eastern Montana College, estimated t h e speed a t 40
t o 48 miles per hour. The speed l i m i t a t t h a t point was 25 miles
per hour. O f f i c e r Carranco and D r . McRae agreed t h a t i f Roberts
had been t r a v e l i n g t h e speed l i m i t he could have stopped i n time.
O f f i c e r Carranco t e s t i f i e d t h e c r o s s i n g was v i s i b l e from
t h e l i g h t -of t h e s t r e e t , l i g h t when standing a t t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n
of F i r s t Avenue and Railroad S t r e e t one-tenth mile away. The
view south of t h e c r o s s i n g was obscured by b u i l d i n g s and vege-
tation.
There had been two o t h e r f a t a l a c c i d e n t s a t t h e same c r o s s i n g ,
one w i t h i n 4 112 months p r i o r t o March 20, 1972 and one 9 months
after.
P l a i n t i f f s claim t h e crossing was e x t r a hazardous and
defendant w a s n e g l i g e n t :
1. I n t h e manner i n which t h e c r o s s i n g was flagged.
According t o t h e testimony of Jones, i t was t h e usual and
customary p r a c t i c e t o f l a g t r a f f i c a t t h i s spur c r o s s i n g and t o
p r o t e c t t h e c r o s s i n g u n t i l t h e f r o n t of t h e movement had passed
over t h e crossing.
2. I n f a i l i n g t o maintain s u i t a b l e e l e c t r i c o r mechan-
i c a l warnings a t t h e c r o s s i n g .
3. I n f a i l i n g t o maintain adequate l i g h t i n g a t t h e
crossing.
Defendant claims i t was not n e g l i g e n t o r , i f n e g l i g e n t ,
i t s negligence was n o t a proximate cause of t h e a c c i d e n t . It
f u r t h e r maintains Roberts was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t i n f a i l i n g
t o keep a proper lookout, exceeding t h e 25 m i l e s per hour speed
l i m i t and i n racing i n v i o l a t i o n of law. Defendant f u r t h e r
argues t h a t summary judgment was properly granted on t h e b a s i s
of e i t h e r c o n t r i b u t o r y negligence o r compmtive negligence.
I n B e i e r l e v. Taylor, 164 Mont. 436, 439, 524 P.2d 783,
t h e Court s a i d :
"Rule 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides t h a t summary judgment
i s proper i f :
"I* * *the pleadings, d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o
i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and admissions on f i l e show t h a t t h e r e
i s no genuine i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t
t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment a s a m a t t e r of
law. I
he burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e absence of .any i s s u e
of m a t e r i a l f a c t i s on t h e moving party. ***
But
where t h e record d i s c l o s e s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l
f a c t , t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion must present s u b s t a n t i a l
evidence r a i s i n g such i s s u e . [ C i t i n g cases]".
I n Barich v. O t t e n s t r o r , - t.
Mon , 550 P.2d 395,
33 St.Rep. 481, 483, t h e Court again s a i d :
"In l i g h t of Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., t h e p a r t y opposing
a motion f o r summary judgment on a record which r e v e a l s
no i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t must p r e s e n t f a c t s of a
s u b s t a n t i a l nature. Conclusory o r s p e c u l a t i v e s t a t e -
ments a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t t o r a i s e a genuine i s s u e of
material f a c t ."
I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , although t h e switchman, Jones, may
have v i o l a t e d t h e r u l e i n n o t remaining on t h e ground u n t i l t h e
f r o n t of t h e movement had passed over t h e c r o s s i n g , t h e f r o n t of
t h e movement had passed over t h e c r o s s i n g before Roberts began
t o approach t h e crossing. Therefore, i f Jonest a c t i o n d i d con-
s t i t u t e negligence, i t could not be a proximate cause of t h e
a c c i d e n t , F u r t h e r , t h e c r o s s i n g was v i s i b l e from t h e s t r e e t l i g h t
from a d i s t a n c e of 528 f e e t , o r approximately one-tenth mile.
A t t h e time t h e boys turned onto Railroad S t r e e t , t h e f i r s t c a r of
t h e movement w a s a c r o s s t h e c r o s s i n g and v i s i b l e from t h e
i n t e r s e c t i o n with F i r s t Avenue.
On t h e o t h e r hand, Roberts had t h e duty t o e x e r c i s e
reasonable c a r e , including t h e duty t o keep a proper lookout.
S u l l i v a n and M i l l e r v. Doe, 159 Mont. 50, 495 P.2d 193.
Section 32-2144, R.C.M. 1947, provides t h a t every person
operating a v e h i c l e s h a l l d r i v e a t a r a t e of speed no g r e a t e r
than i s reasonable and proper under t h e c o n d i t i o n s , taking i n t o
account t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e s u r f a c e and t h e freedom of o b s t r u c t i o n
t o v i s i o n ahead. F u r t h e r , it provides t h a t i n any urban d i s t r i c t
t h e speed l i m i t i s 25 miles per hour, b u t a d r h e r s h a l l :
"* * * d r i v e a t an a p p r o p r i a t e reduced speed when
approaching and c r o s s i n g an i n t e r s e c t i o n o r railway
grade crossing * * *."
Section 32-2143.1, R.C.M. 1947, provides:
"No r a c e o r c o n t e s t f o r speed s h a l l be held and no
person s h a l l engage i n o r a i d o r a b e t i n any
motor v e h i c l e speed c o n t e s t o r e x h i b i t i o n of speed
on a p u b l i c highway o r s t r e e t without w r i t t e n permission
of t h e a u t h o r i t i e s*** having j u r i s d i c t i o n* * *."
V i o l a t i o n of a s t a t u t e o r ordinance i s negligence a s a
matter of law. Rader v. Nicholls, 140 Mont. 459, 373 P.2d 312.
Here defendant m e t i t s i n i t i a l burden under Rule 56 when
it proved Roberts f a i l e d t o keep a proper lookout, v i o l a t e d t h e
speed l i m i t and engaged i n racing i n v i o l a t i o n of s e c t i o n 32-2143.1.
The proof before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f a i l e d t o support t h e
p l a i n t i f f s ' contentions.
Under t h e f a c t s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w a s c o r r e c t i n g r a n t i n g
summary judgment. It was incumbent on t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o come
forward w i t h proof of t h e i r contentions t o show t h a t a genuine
material f a c t issue existed.
Judgment i s affirmed.
Hon.
BQ#L
ck L. Green, D i s t r i c t Judge,
sittCng f o r J u s t i c e Castles.