(Download) "Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Smith Material Corp." by Fifth Circuit United States Court Of Appeals ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Smith Material Corp.
- Author : Fifth Circuit United States Court Of Appeals
- Release Date : January 28, 1980
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
This diversity case, Texas law controlling, concerns a collision between a truck and a train. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (""Southern Pacific"") and the National Railroad Passenger Corp. (""Amtrak""), acting as a single entity, sued Smith Material Corp. (""Smith"") for damages to its train tracks and cars when a truck driven by a Smith employee collided with the train at a railroad crossing. Smith counterclaimed for damages to its truck. The jury apportioned fault, finding Smith responsible for 75 per cent of the negligence proximately causing the collision, Amtrak and Southern Pacific 25 per cent negligent. The trial judge, on Southern Pacific/Amtrak's motion, then entered a declaratory judgment providing for contribution between the parties in accordance with their respective negligence for any liability which might be incurred to third parties as a result of the collision. Smith Material appealed. We affirm the findings of negligence. We also affirm the declaratory judgment with the exception that it shall not apply in any case in which Amtrak is found liable to a passenger or any other party to whom it owed a higher duty of care by virtue of its status as a common carrier. I. Jury Instructions Smith objects to the court's jury charge on the ground that it misstated Texas law. Texas Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6701d § 86 (Vernon 1977) governs vehicular safety at railroad crossings.1 Smith would be negligent as a matter of law for the unexcused violation of this statute unless it presented some evidence to excuse its nonconformance. Southern Pacific Co. v. Castro, 493 S.W.2d 491 (Tex.1973). Five representative, though non-exclusive, categories of excuses2 adopted from the Second Restatement of Torts, § 288A (1965) will prevent a finding of negligence per se. Impson v. Structural Metals, Inc., 487 S.W.2d 694 (Tex.1972). That is, the statutory violation will be excused if some evidence, which is more than a mere speculation or suspicion, of a legally acceptable excuse is presented. Hoppe v. Hughes, 577 S.W.2d 773 (Tex.Civ.App. Amarillo 1979, writ ref'd n. r. e.).
 "Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. Smith Material Corp." by Fifth Circuit United States Court Of Appeals ~ eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free){kind=link}