Calhoun v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
331 S.W.3d 236
Ky.2011Background
- This is a Kentucky Supreme Court case reviewing summary judgment in favor of CSX Transportation and its engineer after a private-crossing collision in Bullitt County, arising from Mary Calhoun driving to a privately owned sanitation company and crossing CSX tracks.
- The crossing is an unnamed gravel road with a crossbuck at the BCS crossing, no other warnings, and vegetation along the Sanitation Company side obstructing view.
- CSX’s train approached northbound; Calhoun’s car was struck, causing serious injuries to Mary; weather was dark and foggy; the incident occurred about 6:30 a.m. on December 12, 2001.
- The Sanitation Company and adjacent landowners previously were defendants; CSX moved for summary judgment, arguing the crossing was private and there was minimal duty at private crossings.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals held the crossing was private and CSX owed no duty beyond discovery of peril; this Court granted discretionary review to consider the proper duties at private crossings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the BCS crossing public or private? | Calhoun: crossing should be treated as public due to usage and proximity to public road. | CSX: crossing is private; no county/public maintenance or acceptance; county road system does not include the gravel road. | Crossing deemed private; no public-duty status. |
| What minimal duty does CSX owe at a private crossing? | CSX failed to maintain sightlines and vegetation; duty to warn once peril is discovered may exist. | At private crossings, railroad owes no duty of lookout or warning unless peril is observed; vegetation removal not CSX duty. | Private-crossing duty is minimal; no lookout/warning absent peril discovery unless ultra-hazardous or other exceptions apply. |
| Do the three exceptions to the minimal duty apply here? | Ultra-hazardous crossing due to vegetation and sight-line issues; assumption of duty and pervasive-use arguments may apply. | Assumed-duty not proven (no reliance evidence); ultra-hazardous crossing should be resolved by jury; pervasive-use not established. | Assumed-duty and pervasive-use rejected; ultra-hazardous crossing remanded to determine material-fact issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Deitz’ Adm’x v. Cincinnati N.O. & T.P. Ry. Co., 176 S.W.2d 699 (Ky. 1943) (public road establishment requires statute, dedication, and acceptance)
- Stull’s Adm’x v. Kentucky Traction & Terminal Co., 189 S.W.2d 721 (Ky. 1916) (public vs private crossing duties distinguished)
- Hunt’s Adm’r v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 254 S.W.2d 705 (Ky. 1952) (private-crossing minimal duty; lookout/warning not owed absent peril)
- Spalding v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 136 S.W.2d 1 (Ky. 1940) (landowner bears vegetation maintenance duty on servient estate at private crossing)
- Quisenberry v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 338 S.W.2d 409 (Ky. 1960) (ultra-hazardous crossing exception allows warning duty when crossing is unusually dangerous)
- Gaw v. CSX Transp., Inc., 2008 WL 793655 (W.D. Ky. 2008) (federal decision cited; not controlling for state-law ultra-hazard analysis)