Summary Judgment for BNSF In Grade Crossing Fatality Case Affirmed on Appeal

Mullican & Hart, P.C. in Tulsa, Oklahoma is pleased to report that on January 25, 2019 the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of BNSF in a grade crossing fatality case. In the underlying case, the decedent’s SUV collided with a train at a railroad crossing near Enid, Oklahoma. Despite a host of Plaintiff’s experts who claimed that BNSF was at fault because the grade crossing created a “trap” for approaching motorists, the trial court concluded that the driver’s violation of the statutory obligation to yield to a train at a grade crossing cut off any liability on the part of the railroad. The trial court ruled that the driver failed to operate his vehicle at a speed that would allow him to bring it to a stop within the “assured clear distance ahead” and further failed to yield to BNSF’s plainly visible train when it was in hazardous proximity to the grade crossing.

The Oklahoma Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment. Notably, the Court held that because BNSF complied with Oklahoma’s “sight-triangle” regulations (requiring vegetation clearing in a triangular pattern extending 50’ down the road and 250’ down the track), the driver was deemed to have an unobstructed view of the approaching train for purposes of determining whether the driver complied with his statutory obligations. The Court then found that because Plaintiff’s expert testified that Plaintiff was traveling at approximately 28 miles per hour when it was 70 feet from the center of the crossing and at that speed could not have yielded pursuant to [47 Okla. Stat.] §§11-801(A) & (E) and 11-701(A)(4).” The appeals court considered that these safety statutes were intended to prevent the injury complained of and the driver was within the class of people intended to be protected. The statutory violation in failing to yield “was the supervening, and therefore, proximate cause of his death,” and thus “any negligence on the part of BNSF was not the proximate cause of the accident.”  Bulstrode v. BNSF Railway Co.