Coutlakis v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
293 Va. 212
| Va. | 2017Background
- On July 6, 2013 James Coutlakis was walking adjacent to CSX railroad tracks listening to music and was struck and killed by a protruding part of a CSX train.
- Gina Coutlakis (his widow) sued CSX and the train crew (conductor Crowder and engineer Epstein) alleging their negligence caused James’s death.
- Complaint alleges James was unaware of the approaching train, the crew saw him several hundred yards ahead, knew or should have known he was in peril, and had time to avert the accident.
- Defendants demurred, arguing the complaint on its face showed James’s contributory negligence (including continuing negligence) barred recovery, and that last clear chance does not apply.
- Trial court sustained the demurrer; Gina appealed.
- Supreme Court of Virginia reversed, holding the complaint sufficiently pleaded facts that could support application of the last clear chance doctrine and that demurrer dismissal was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether James’s contributory negligence on the face of the complaint bars recovery | Gina: complaint alleges elements of last clear chance (inattentive plaintiff) so contributory negligence does not bar suit | Defendants: James’s negligence continued to the moment of injury (continuing negligence) and thus bars last clear chance | Reversed — continuing negligence alone does not automatically bar last clear chance; complaint adequate to survive demurrer |
| Whether last clear chance doctrine applies where plaintiff was inattentive (not helpless) | Gina: Greear’s inattentive-plaintiff formulation fits facts; crew had last clear chance | Defendants: Greear didn’t overrule prior cases on continuing negligence; doctrine inapplicable | Court: adopts Greear framework; focuses on whether defendant saw/should have realized peril in time to avoid accident; doctrine may apply |
| Whether willful and wanton negligence by James defeats last clear chance | Gina: not established on pleadings | Defendants: contend James acted willfully/wanton | Court: factual question for trial; cannot decide on demurrer |
| Whether proximity to tracks or "zone of danger" makes James aware as a matter of law | Defendants: inherent danger of tracks implies awareness | Gina: complaint alleges he was unaware and walked adjacent to but not on tracks | Court: factual dispute about distance and awareness; premature to dismiss on demurrer |
Key Cases Cited
- Greear v. Noland Co., 197 Va. 233 (1955) (adopted two-part last clear chance rule distinguishing helpless and inattentive plaintiffs)
- Eisenhower v. Jeter, 205 Va. 159 (1964) (explains last clear chance meaning and application)
- Southern Ry. Co. v. Bailey, 110 Va. 833 (1910) (discusses intervening negligence and how defendant’s negligence can render plaintiff’s negligence remote)
- Williams v. Harrison, 255 Va. 272 (1998) (recites that plaintiff may recover only if contributory negligence was remote rather than proximate)
- Cook v. Shoulder, 200 Va. 281 (1958) (last clear chance cases turn on whether defendant had clear opportunity to avoid accident)
- Brown v. Vinson, 198 Va. 495 (1956) (discusses last clear chance and defendant’s opportunity to avert harm)