(a) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section, then the driver of the vehicle shall stop within fifty feet (50¢) but not less than fifteen feet (15¢) from the nearest rail of such railroad and shall not proceed until he can do so safely. These requirements shall apply when:
(1) A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train;
(2) A crossing gate is lowered or a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train;
(3) A railroad train approaching within approximately one thousand five hundred feet (1500¢) of the highway crossing emits a signal audible from such distance and the railroad train, by reason of its speed or nearness to the crossing, is an immediate hazard;
(4) An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to the crossing.
(b) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around, or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while the gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
History. Acts 1937, No. 300, § 84; Pope's Dig., § 6742; Acts 1951, No. 182, § 1; 1959, No. 307, § 28; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-637.
Cross References. Penalty for violation of 1959 amendatory act, § 27-50-305.
Case Notes
Duties of Drivers.
Evidence of Negligence.
Instructions.
Where automatic blinker signals and bells are operating when vehicles approach a railroad crossing, it is the driver's duty to stop and not proceed until he can do so safely. Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Yandell, 209 Ark. 569, 191 S.W.2d 592 (1946).
The duty of train operators to give warning of their approach and to keep a lookout for vehicles is equal with the duty of vehicle operators to keep a lookout for trains upon approaching railroad tracks, which historically have been described by the courts as in themselves warnings of danger. Overstreet v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 195 F. Supp. 542 (W.D. Ark. 1961).
The statutory duty to stop does not become applicable unless the railroad train emits an audible signal from a distance of not less than 1500 feet of the crossing or unless the train is plainly visible. Scoville v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 458 F.2d 639 (8th Cir. 1972).
Plaintiff's contention that defendant was negligent in not having a flagman at a crossing was rejected where there was nothing to show what more a “human flagman” could have done than was being done by the traffic control bells and by the flashing red signal lights with the admonition “Stop on Red Signal” in blazing color immediately under the lights. Overstreet v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 195 F. Supp. 542 (W.D. Ark. 1961).
Plaintiff failed to establish negligence of railroad company where the testimony was undisputed that signal lights and signal bells were operating; where the testimony overwhelmingly established that the train whistle was sounding and that the train bell was continuously ringing; where no one testified that the train running at 22 miles per hour was traveling at an unusually high or excessive rate of speed; where there was nothing to prevent plaintiff and the driver of the automobile from seeing the signal lights in ample time for the car to have been stopped; where plaintiff testified that she was not looking at the signal lights; where the train engineer and fireman testified that they were keeping a proper lookout; where both plaintiff and the driver of the automobile were familiar with the crossing; where all other motor vehicle operators who testified stated that the approach of the train was very evident; and where, notwithstanding these facts, the driver of the automobile proceeded to the track. Overstreet v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 195 F. Supp. 542 (W.D. Ark. 1961).
Evidence that railroad was negligent in failing to give statutory signal and maintaining an extra hazardous crossing, which caused train to collide with decedent's car, was sufficient for jury to have awarded damages for wrongful death. Scoville v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 458 F.2d 639 (8th Cir. 1972).
An instruction setting out a safety regulation of the Interstate Commerce Commission was not prejudicial to the plaintiff in a railroad crossing accident case, since the duty imposed by that regulation upon plaintiff's decedent was less than that imposed by this section. Bussell v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 237 Ark. 812, 376 S.W.2d 545 (1964).
There was no error in refusing an instruction on this section where two other instructions adequately presented the theory on the issue of a motorist's duty to stop at a railroad crossing. Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Harelson, 238 Ark. 452, 382 S.W.2d 900 (1964).