Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

settlementdamagesnegligenceverdictcontributory negligenceduty of care
settlementnegligenceverdictduty of care

Related Cases

Y.H. Investments, Inc. v. Godales, 690 So.2d 1273, 22 Fla. L. Weekly S153
View Case »
Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 665 S.W.2d 414
View Case »
Rocha v. Faltys, 69 S.W.3d 315
View Case »
Mulcahy v. Eli Lilly & Co., 386 N.W.2d 67, 54 USLW 2566, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 10,982
View Case »
Cullinan v. Tetrault, 123 Me. 302, 122 A. 770, 31 A.L.R. 1330
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

RGR, LLC v. Settle, 288 Va. 260, 764 S.E.2d 8

Facts

Charles E. Settle, Sr. was fatally injured when a train struck the dump truck he was operating at a private railroad crossing controlled only by crossbuck signs. RGR, LLC, operated a lumber offloading business adjacent to the crossing and had stacked lumber within Norfolk Southern's right-of-way, obstructing the view of oncoming trains. Settle's widow filed a wrongful death suit against RGR and other parties, alleging that the lumber stacks created a hazardous condition that contributed to the accident.

Settle was driving southbound on Kapp Valley Way (from left to right in the photograph) toward the railroad crossing. The train was traveling east (from bottom to top in the photograph), approaching Settle from his right. RGR's lumber stacks were situated on the north side of the tracks at the corner where Kapp Valley Way crosses the railroad tracks.

Issue

Did RGR, LLC owe a duty of care to Settle, and was Settle contributorily negligent in the circumstances leading to the collision?

Did RGR, LLC owe a duty of care to Settle, and was Settle contributorily negligent in the circumstances leading to the collision?

Rule

A property owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use and maintenance of their property to prevent injury to others, particularly when their actions create a risk of harm.

A property owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care in the use and maintenance of their property to prevent injury to others, particularly when their actions create a risk of harm.

Analysis

The court found that RGR owed a duty of care to Settle because the lumber stacks obstructed the sightline of motorists approaching the railroad crossing. The jury was instructed correctly on the duty of care, and the court determined that Settle's failure to look and listen did not constitute contributory negligence as a matter of law. The court concluded that RGR's negligence was a proximate cause of the collision.

The court found that RGR owed a duty of care to Settle because the lumber stacks obstructed the sightline of motorists approaching the railroad crossing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Settle's estate but reversed the circuit court's method of calculating the offset for the settlement with the railroad, requiring that the settlement be deducted from the total damages before calculating prejudgment interest.

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Settle's estate but reversed the circuit court's method of calculating the offset for the settlement with the railroad.

Who won?

The widow, Georgia Settle, prevailed in the case because the jury found that RGR's negligence in obstructing the view at the railroad crossing was a proximate cause of the accident.

The widow, Georgia Settle, prevailed in the case because the jury found that RGR's negligence in obstructing the view at the railroad crossing was a proximate cause of the accident.

You must be