Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship. Goodman, U. Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations Annotation Primary Holding While the jury usually decides what reasonable care would be, courts can make that decision when the standard is clear.
Goodman reduced speed to 10 mph as he was driving his truck toward a blind railroad crossing that lacked signals and guard rails.
When he did see the train, he was unable to stop and was struck and killed. However, the jury did not direct a verdict for the railroad, and the jury eventually found for Goodman's family. It was obvious in this case that a reasonable person should have checked for a train in the area around the tracks, so this issue could be decided by the court and did not need to be submitted to the jury.
Syllabus Case U. Goodman No. Page U. He knows that Page U. Judgment reversed. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site.
Please check official sources. Waite, both of Cincinnati, Ohio, for petitioner. Robert N. Brumbaugh and I. Jacobson, both of Dayton, Ohio, for respondent. This is a suit brought by the widow and administratrix of Nathan Goodman against the petitioner for causing his death by running him down at a grade crossing.
The defence is that Goodman's own negligence caused the death. At the trial the defendant asked the Court to direct a verdict for it, but the request and others looking to the same direction were refused, and the plaintiff got a verdict and a judgment which was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Goodman was driving an automobile truck in an easterly direction and was killed by a train running southwesterly across the road at a rate of not less than 60 miles an hour.
The line was straight but it is said by the respondent that Goodman 'had no practical view' beyond a section house feet north of the crossing until he was about 20 feet from the first rail, or, as the respondent argues, 12 feet from danger, and that then the engine was stiil obscured by the section house.
He had been driving at the rate of 10 or 12 miles an hour but had cut down his rate to 5 or 6 miles at about 40 feet from the crossing. It is thought that there was an emergency in which, so far as appears, Goodman did all that he could. We do not go into further details as to Goodman's precise situation, beyond mentioning that it was daylight and that he was familiar with the crossing, for it appears to us plain that nothing is suggested by the evidence to relieve Goodman from responsibility for his own death.
When a man goes upon a railroad track he knows that he goes to a place where he will be killed if a train comes upon him before he is clear of the track.
He knows that Page In such circumstances it seems to us that if a driver cannot be sure otherwise whether a train is dangerously near he must stop and get out of his vehicle, although obviously he will not often be required to do more than to stop and look.
It seems to us that if he relies upon not hearing the train or any signal and takes no further precaution he does so at his own risk.
0コメント