![]() In addition, the entire Visger Road railroad signal system was the subject of extensive inspection and testing immediately after the accident and the signal lights, bells, and gates were again all found to be *114 operating correctly. In fact, the lowered railroad gate on the opposite or northeast side of the fifth track was lying on the ground after being struck by plaintiff's vehicle. The crew testified that because of the slow speed of plaintiff's vehicle, they believed she intended to stop within the forty-one feet available between the fourth and fifth track.įollowing the accident, the signal system at the crossing was still in operation when the police arrived. Plaintiff's vehicle continued the final forty-one feet to the location of the fifth track where the accident occurred. The train crew indicated that they observed plaintiff's vehicle drive around the first lowered gate outside what would be the second track at the crossing and then drive around the second lowered gate outside what would be the fourth track at the crossing. The three members of the Conrail train crew operating the train involved in this accident testified that as their train approached the crossing they observed that the flashing signal lights were in operation and that the gates were lowered as their train crossed over Saliotte Street, one half mile south of Visger Road. He testified that the signal system was operating correctly. During the several hours before plaintiff's accident, a Conrail locomotive engineer had been operating his engine across the Visger Road crossing. The deposition testimony of several witnesses was that the Visger Road railroad signal system was operating properly on the day of the accident. ![]() That inspection, like those for the previous six months, found that the signal system at the crossing was functioning properly. On February 4, 1992, the day before the accident, such an inspection of the signal lights, bells, and gates at the Visger Road crossing took place. Under federal regulations, Conrail conducts monthly inspections of all its railroad crossings. On the basis of the twenty-nine-mile-per-hour speed of the Conrail train, the signal system at the Visger Road crossing had begun to operate approximately fifty-seven seconds before plaintiff's accident. The flashing signal lights, bells, and gates at the crossing are interconnected, so that when a train is located on any one of the tracks, except the first GTW track, the signals are automatically activated. In support of the motion, Conrail presented evidence that the railroad signal system at the crossing was electronically activated when a northbound Conrail train reached a point on the track 2,453 feet south of the crossing. The key question on Conrail's motion for summary disposition was whether the warning lights and gates were in fact working. Thus, as plaintiff approached the track at which she collided with the train, plaintiff passed two sets of lights and gates. There is another set of lights and gates guarding the entire array of tracks (except the GTW yard track, which lies outside the first set of lights). The two Conrail main-line tracks (including the one involved in this accident) are guarded by warning lights and gates. The Conrail train with which plaintiff collided was northbound on the easterly of the two Conrail main-line tracks, i.e., the fifth set of tracks that the plaintiff would have encountered. In order as the plaintiff would have approached them were a Grand Trunk Western (GTW) yard track, two GTW tracks for through traffic, two Conrail tracks for through traffic, and three Conrail yard tracks. A total of eight sets of railroad tracks cross the road at that location. *113 Thus, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the circuit court's judgment.Īt the time of the accident, the plaintiff was traveling eastbound on Visger Road in Ecorse. We conclude that the plaintiff did not come forward with evidence sufficient to defeat the motion for summary disposition. The circuit court granted summary disposition for the defendant under MCR 2.116(C)(10), finding no genuine issue of material fact and that the railroad was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. She sued the railroad, claiming that its warning gates and lights were not functioning properly. The plaintiff was injured in a collision between the car she was driving and a train operated by defendant Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail). Clifton, Detroit, MI, for defendant-appellant. Mallon, Birmingham, MI, for plaintiff-appellee.ĭurkin, McDonnell & Clifton by Joseph J. CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |