## Facts

- John Pokora drove a truck in Springfield, Illinois, toward a railroad crossing at Tenth and Edwards Streets to reach an ice depot.
- The crossing involved four tracks: an eastern switch track, the main line, and two western switch tracks.
- A string of boxcars on the switch track near the crossing obstructed Pokora’s view northward along the tracks.
- Pokora stopped, looked north from a point near the switch, and listened; he heard no bell or whistle.
- As he proceeded across, a passenger train approached from the north on the main line and struck his truck at about 25–30 mph.
- Evidence permitted a finding that, because of the obstruction and limited distance between the switch and main track (and train/boxcar overhang), the train may not have been visible from Pokora’s seat in time to stop safely.

## Issues

1. Whether Pokora was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for crossing with an obstructed view without getting out of his truck to look for an oncoming train.
2. Whether the trial court properly directed a verdict for the railroad, or whether contributory negligence had to be submitted to the jury.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the railroad and held that contributory negligence was a jury question on this record.
- The Court rejected a categorical rule that a driver with an obstructed view must exit the vehicle and inspect the tracks before crossing.
- Applying the directed-verdict standard, the Court held that the evidence, viewed favorably to Pokora, did not compel a finding of contributory negligence.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with submitting the negligence question to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- The defendant bears the burden of proving contributory negligence as a defense in a personal-injury action.
- On a motion for directed verdict at the close of the plaintiff’s evidence, courts must view evidence and reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
- A court may declare a fixed standard of care as a rule of law only when noncompliance is so plainly negligent that reasonable minds could not disagree.
- There is no general legal duty requiring a motorist to get out of a vehicle to look for trains at an obstructed crossing; the reasonableness of precautions depends on the specific circumstances and is ordinarily for the jury.

## Conclusion

Because the obstructed crossing, the absence of audible warnings, and the physical constraints could support a finding that Pokora acted reasonably, the Supreme Court held that contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law and had to be decided by a jury rather than by directed verdict.


Pokora v. Wabash Ry. Co., 292 U.S. 98 (1934)