## Facts

- Nathan Goodman drove a truck toward a railroad grade crossing and was struck and killed by a Baltimore & Ohio Railroad train traveling at least about 60 mph.
- The collision occurred in daylight on a straight track; Goodman was familiar with the crossing.
- A section house about 243 feet from the crossing obstructed Goodman’s view of an oncoming train until he was very close to the tracks.
- Goodman approached at about 10–12 mph and slowed to about 5–6 mph roughly 40 feet from the crossing, but proceeded onto the track.
- Goodman’s widow, as administratrix, sued the railroad for wrongful death, alleging the railroad’s negligence caused the collision.

## Issues

1. Whether a driver approaching a railroad crossing with an obstructed view is negligent as a matter of law for proceeding without stopping and, if necessary to obtain a clear view, exiting the vehicle to look.
2. Whether the trial court should have removed the due-care question from the jury and directed a verdict for the railroad based on contributory negligence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The Court held that Goodman’s contributory negligence was established as a matter of law.
- The Court concluded the case should not have gone to the jury; a verdict should have been directed for the railroad.

## Legal Principles

- A motorist who enters a railroad crossing must take precautions commensurate with the known, lethal risk of trains; the motorist must yield to the train.
- If a driver cannot determine whether a train is dangerously near because the view is obstructed, reasonable care requires the driver to stop and look, and, if necessary, stop and exit the vehicle to obtain a clear view.
- Reliance solely on not hearing a train or signals, without further precaution where visibility is limited, can constitute negligence.
- Although due care is often a jury question, courts may set and apply a clear standard of conduct and decide negligence as a matter of law when the standard is sufficiently definite on the facts presented.
- Under contributory negligence doctrine, a plaintiff’s negligence contributing to the injury bars recovery.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, given the obstructed view and the readily available precaution of stopping (and, if needed, getting out to look), Goodman’s failure to ensure the track was clear constituted contributory negligence as a matter of law, requiring judgment for the railroad.


Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Goodman, 275 U.S. 66 (1927)