(The following story by Beverly Majors appeared on the Oak Ridger website on July 19.)
OAK RIDGE, Tenn. — The family of a Clinton woman killed in a train-truck collision in 2002 has lost an appeal on the local court’s judgment.
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville has affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court for Anderson County, which put part of the blame on the cause of the accident against that of the deceased woman.
Kathryn L. Martin of Laurel Road, Clinton, was killed when the pickup truck she was driving was hit by a Norfolk Southern Railroad train near Moran Baptist Church, in the Dossett area near Marlow. The crash happened shortly after 9 a.m. on May 12, 2002. Martin drove in front of the train. The railroad crossing at that location is a private drive to the church and has no crossing arms or signals.
The family of Martin filed a wrongful death action in the case against Norfolk Southern Railway Co. and Anthony D. Worley, the engineer.
The lawsuit charged that Worley did not travel at a safe speed, failed to sound adequate warning, and did not stop the train when he knew a collision was imminent. The suit also stated that Norfolk Southern was guilty of failing to install lights and gates at the crossing, allowing brush and trees to grow in the right-of-way, allowing its employees to fail to five warnings and operate at excessive speeds, and also failing to properly train them.
Testimony from depositions from the original hearing stated that Martin stopped short of the storage track and she could see for 300 feet, but the train was 400 feet away, and that once she left that position and moved forward, the time and space for her to perceive, interpret, evaluate and perform relative to the approaching train was not sufficient to avoid the collision.
Judge Don Elledge, in a Memorandum Opinion, found that Worley saw Martin from at least 400 feet away and that she had the opportunity to see the train from at least 300 feet away. His opinion stated “that as an old football player, that is the length of a football field.”
Elledge noted other alleged factual disputes but ultimately said Martin was familiar with the crossing and knew she should stop and look and listen, but failed to do so. He also found the vegetation did not cause the accident, but the cause was Martin’s failure to reasonably utilize her stop. He found that Martin was at least 50 percent at fault, granting a Summary Judgment to the defendants. The estate of Martin appealed that decision.
The Court of Appeals opinion stated, after reviewing testimony and depositions, that its inquiry “involves purely a question of law, no presumption of correctness attaches to the lower court’s judgment… ” The court determined that disputed facts in the case did not merit a change in the summary judgment and affirmed Elledge’s opinion.