 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Deen9/16/2004
Patricia Deen was stopped at a train crossing, and her car was struck in the rear by a drunk driver. The collision propelled Deen into a train, rendering her a quadriplegic. Deen filed suit against CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSX), alleging that CSX was negligent in maintaining the crossing. CSX moved for summary judgment, arguing that Deen was unable to prove causation. The trial court denied the motion. CSX also filed a motion in limine to exclude certain evidence, which the trial court granted. Both parties applied for interlocutory review, and we granted the applications.
In Case Number A04A1528, CSX appeals the trial court's denial of its motion for summary judgment. In Case Number A04A1529, Deen appeals from the order granting CSX's motion in limine. As the cases involve the same operative facts, we have consolidated them on appeal. For reasons that follow, we reverse Case Number A04A1528 and dismiss Case Number A04A1529 as moot.
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [FN1] In reviewing the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard of review, and we "view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant." [FN2]
Viewed in this manner, the evidence shows that CSX maintains railroad tracks that cross Albany Avenue in Waycross, Georgia. The tracks are marked by a "crossbuck" sign to the right of the road and a white "R R" and crossbuck painted on the road. According to Deen, the crossbuck sign was not posted at the proper height and was not "reflectorized" as required by law. [FN3] When the crossing was occupied by trains at night, CSX ordinarily used flares to signal traffic to stop.
On the night of September 13, 1999, although a CSX train was blocking the intersection, no flares illuminated the crossing. However, a CSX flagman was at the crossing. While Deen was driving down Albany Avenue toward the tracks, the flagman signaled her to stop, and she did. The flagman then got on the train and rode further down the tracks.
The evidence shows that Deen stopped approximately 50 to 60 feet from the crossing, placed her car in park, and moved her foot "off and on" the brake. Deen's low beam headlights, tail lights, and brake lights were illuminated and functioning properly. While Deen was stopped, her car was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by Vicky Jenkins. Deen's car was pushed into the train, and Deen was seriously injured.
At the time of the collision, Jenkins had a blood alcohol content of .14, which is over the legal limit. [FN4] Jenkins testified that before the collision she drank one wine cooler and part of another. However, she claimed that alcohol played no part in the accident. According to Jenkins, she knew that there was a railroad crossing on Albany Avenue, but she thought the tracks were no longer in use. As she approached the crossing, she saw Deen's car, but thought that Deen had turned off the road. By the time Jenkins realized that Deen's car was stopped in front of her, she was unable to stop her vehicle in time to prevent the collision. Although Jenkins braked and left approximately 100 feet of skid marks, she hit Deen's car.
*2 Following the collision, Jenkins was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol and serious injury by vehicle. During her criminal trial, Jenkins testified that she did not see the train because it was dark and because a "big tanker" blocking the road obscured any light from oncoming traffic. [FN5]
Deen filed suit against both CSX and Jenkins. [FN6] In the complaint, Deen alleged that "CSX was negligent in blocking Albany Avenue when it knew or should have known
Page 1 2 3 Georgia DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|