Wilcox v. Southern Pacific Co.

VAN DYKE, P. J. This is an appeal from a judgment entered upon a defense verdict in a wrongful death action. The deceased, Clayton Wilcox, was killed when he attempted to drive across respondent’s mainline railroad track, which, in the area of the crossing, parallels the Anderson-Cottonwood Road in Shasta County. The site of the accident was the intersection of the railroad track, running north and south, and County Road E-ll, running east and west. The deceased had driven north on the Anderson-Cottonwood Road to County Road E-ll where he turned to the right. He then traveled in an easterly direction on the latter road for a distance of approximately 86 feet to the railroad track which he proceeded to cross in the path of an oncoming freight train. Wilcox was driving 20 to 25 miles per hour; the train was running at 40. The intersection of the Anderson-Cottonwood Road with County Road E-ll is a T-intersection, that is, County Road E-ll coming into Anderson-Cottonwood from the east does not cross.

The major controversy in the instant case centers around the crossing signals. The signals involved, installed and maintained by the defendant company are blinker light signals. One set was located on the southwest corner of the intersection of the track and the county road and the other set was located on the northeast corner. The lights at the southwest corner were beamed in a general northwesterly direction • those on the northeast corner in a general westerly direction, but directed slightly south. It is the principal contention of appellants that these lights as installed and maintained did not comply with Public Utility Commission Safety Order designated as General Order 75-B. That order, so far as material here, reads as follows:

“Crossing signals shall, unless the Commission otherwise directs, be located in a conspicuous position at both corners of the crossing intersection on the right hand side of highway traffic flow and in advance of the railroad track and arranged to face the highway travel.”

It appears that the blinker lights as installed and maintained did not literally comply with the order. Automobiles traveling north or south on Anderson-Cottonwood Road cannot be said to “approach” the intersection of the track with the county road until they turn onto that road and off Anderson-Cottonwood Road, or at least until they begin that maneuver. The fact that the road intersection is a T-intersection and that the distance from the railroad track to the [551]Anderson-Cottonwood Road is only about 80 feet does not eliminate the requirement of the order that the blinker lights shall be “located in a conspicuous position at both corners of the crossing intersection on the right hand side of highway traffic flow and in advance of the railroad track and arranged to face the highway travel.” (Italics added.) The only highway travel with which we are concerned in this ease is the travel along County Road E-11. There was thus a technical violation of General Order 75-B in the manner in which these blinker lights were installed and maintained and the court should have given plaintiffs’ requested instruction declaring that, as a matter of law, the lights as installed and maintained were in violation of the minimum requirements set up by General Order 75-B and that if this conduct on the part of the railroad company was a proximate cause of the accident plaintiffs were entitled to a verdict in their favor. It is clear from the evidence that the terms of General Order 75-B were ignored in the installation of the blinker lights at the crossing intersection. It is equally clear that they were located and directed as they were, because that was deemed to be the way in which, in that location, the best warning to the public could be given, It was shown that the installation was the result of joint action by the railroad company, the county and the Public Utilities Commission, to the extent of the railroad paying half the cost of installation, the other two agencies dividing the other half. It was not shown that the commission had directed a variance from the requirement of the general order. The light at the southwest comer of the intersection was directed northwesterly so that when the driver of an automobile proceeding south on Anderson-Cottonwood, who intended to enter E-ll, began his turn the blinker lights would be directed at him. The light on the northeast corner of the intersection across the track from Anderson-Cottonwood was directed southwesterly so as to confront a driver turning right onto the county road, as Wilcox did. But no lights to the right of such a driver were beamed west on the county road. A compliance with the general order would have required this and compliance was not made by directing a beam from the light located on the northeast corner to face a driver turning right from Anderson-Cottonwood.