CACI 806 Comparative Fault—Duty to Approach Crossing With Care
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
806 Comparative Fault—Duty to Approach Crossing With Care
A driver approaching a railroad crossing is required to use reasonable care to discover whether a train is approaching. The amount of care that is reasonable will depend on the circumstances. A railroad track is itself a warning of danger. If the driver’s view of approaching trains is blocked, the driver must use greater care than when the view is clear.
If a bell or signal has been placed to warn drivers of danger, a driver is not required to use as much care as when there are no such warnings. However, even if the warning devices are not activated, a driver must use reasonable care in looking and listening for approaching trains.
New September 2003; Revised December 2009, May 2020
Directions for Use
For an instruction regarding the prima facie speed limits set by Vehicle Code section 22352, see CACI No. 707, Speed Limit. For an instruction on the duty of care of a passenger, see CACI No. 711, The Passenger’s Duty of Care for Own Safety. For instructions on negligence per se, see CACI Nos. 418 to 421.
Sources and Authority
•Vehicle Proceeding at Railroad Crossing. Vehicle Code section 22451.
•Speed Limit at Railroad Crossing. Vehicle Code section 22352(a)(1).
•“[T]hat the driver’s view is somewhat obstructed does not make him contributorily negligent as a matter of law; whether his failure to stop, the place from which he looks and the character and extent of the obstruction to his view are such that a reasonably prudent person would not have so conducted himself are questions for the jury in determining whether he was guilty of contributory negligence.” (Lucas v. Southern Pacific Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 124, 139 [96 Cal.Rptr. 356].)
•“A railroad track is itself a warning of danger and a driver intending to cross must avail himself of every opportunity to look and listen; if there are obstructions to the view, he is required to take greater care.” (Wilkinson v. Southern Pacific Co. (1964) 224 Cal.App.2d 478, 488 [36 Cal.Rptr. 689], internal citation omitted.)
•“A railroad company will not be permitted to encourage persons to relax their vigil concerning the dangers that lurk in railroad crossings by assuring them, through the erection of safety devices, that the danger has been removed or minimized, and, at the same time, to hold them to the same degree of care as would be required if those devices had not been provided.” (Will v. Southern Pacific Co. (1941) 18 Cal.2d 468, 474 [116 P.2d 44], internal citation omitted.)
•“[A] driver may not cross tracks in reliance upon the safety appliances installed by the railroad with complete disregard for his own safety and recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of his own failure to use reasonable care.” (Will, supra, 18 Cal.2d at p. 475.)
•“Violation of the railroad’s statutory duty to sound bell and whistle at a highway crossing does not absolve a driver from his failure to look and listen and, if necessitated by circumstances such as obstructed vision, even to stop.” (Wilkinson, supra, 224 Cal.App.2d at p. 489.)
•“It is settled that a railroad may not encourage persons traveling on highways to rely on safety devices and then hold them to the same degree of care as if the devices were not present.” (Startup v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co. (1947) 29 Cal.2d 866, 871 [180 P.2d 896].)
•“When a flagman or mechanical warning device has been provided at a railroad crossing, the driver of an automobile is thereby encouraged to relax his vigilance, and, in using other means to discover whether there is danger of approaching trains, he is not required to exercise the same quantum of care as would otherwise be necessary.” (Spendlove v. Pacific Electric Ry. Co. (1947) 30 Cal.2d 632, 634 [184 P.2d 873], internal citations omitted.)
•“When the case before us was tried January 30, 1958, the stop, look and listen instruction was included in BAJI as instruction Number 203-B. Since the trial, the editors of BAJI have concluded that the instruction does not conform to the standards of negligence which prevail in California.” (Anello v. Southern Pacific Co. (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 317, 322 [344 P.2d 843].)