DATA TO BE ASSIMILATED CONCERNING IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS OF CONDITIONS.

1. Extrahazardous crossing:
The defendants failed to provide adequate warning to the traveling public of the approach of its trains the crossing was an extrahazardous crossing, due to the fact that the view of the trains traveling on the tracks of these defendants was obstructed, due to the sharp angle, rise of the tracks, washboard condition, disrepair, improper markings at which the tracks of these defendants crossed Pine Street, and further due to the fact that said crossing was heavily traveled over by vehicular traffic. 2. Failure to blow train whistle:
The defendants failed to ring or sound the locomotive bell and whistle at a distance of at least 80 rods from the aforesaid crossing, in violation of (cite Ohio statutes) Statutes.
3. Failure of crew to keep proper lookout:
The defendants failed to keep an adequate or proper lookout for motor vehicles approaching the crossing, including the plaintiff s vehicle.
4. Operating train at unreasonably fast speed:
The defendants operated the train at the time and place of the collision at an unreasonably fast speed, considering the condition of the crossing, volume of traffic over the crossing, restrictions to visibility, and the lack of adequate warning of the approach of the train.
5. Violation of State Regulatory Agency's rules:
The defendants violated (cite Ohio statutes) Commerce Commission in the following respects:
(a) The defendants violated (cite Ohio statutes), in that the defendants failed to keep their right-of-way reasonably clear of brush, shrubbery, trees, weeds, crops, buildings, trucks, trailers, and other unnecessary obstructions for a distance of at least 500 feet in an easterly or southerly direction from the said crossing, so that the view of a driver approaching the crossing was obstructed thereby
(b) The defendants violated (cite Ohio statutes), in that the said defendants had a duty by law to construct and maintain the crossing and its approaches so that they would be reasonably safe as to persons or property, but said defendants did not maintain the crossing or approaches thereto so that at all times they would be reasonably safe as to person or property.

6. Improperly constructed or maintained crossing:
The defendants failed to construct and maintain the grade approaches and the crossing in a reasonably safe condition, in that defendants maintained an excessive angle of ascent and descent to the crossing and permitted ruts and holes to exist in the roadway and crossing.
7. Flasher signals not operating:
Although defendant railroad had erected flasher signals at the crossing, the signals did not operate at the time and place of the collision, and adequate warning of the approach of the train was not provided.
8. Invitation to ignore flasher warnings:
The defendant invited the traveling public to cross its crossing when flasher signals were operating by permitting and maintaining a course of prior events wherein the flashing signals at said crossing had previously operated when no train was approaching or traveling over said crossing. a) the number of cars
b) the average weight of each car in tons
c) the total trailing weight in tons
d) the total payload that the train was carrying
e) the total train weight
f) distance the train traveled after emergency application

Automatic Grade Crossing Problems
In considering automatic-grade crossing protection, there are two different areas to discuss: factors to be evaluated in establishing the need for automatic gate protection and the cause and consequence of automatic signal failure. The traffic engineer needs information about these factors as a foundation for his opinion, including the following:

• average daily traffic count (auto) at time of collision
• average daily train count
• posted auto speed
• train speed
• motorist visibility (all quadrants)
• train-crew visibility
• types of vehicles (school buses, trucks, etc.)
• types of trains
• potential weather conditions
• accident history
• grades of approach
• angle of intercept
• alignment of approach road (curves)
• number of lanes each direction
• number of tracks nearness of switchings and sidings; J ffisting crossing protection
• condition of crossing (maintenance, potholes, etc.)
• parallel streets
• adjacent intersections
• control devices at adjacent intersections
• adjacent development (factories, schools, etc.)
• type of protection at crossings in the vicinity

With reference to automatic signals that existed at the time of the collision, the attorney must consider the cause and consequence of improper signal function. This may include no flashing lights when the train is within the approach circuit, flashing lights operating when no train is approaching, or signals that begin operating when the locomotive and the automobile are too close to the crossing for the driver of the automobile to react in time to avoid the collision.

How many times have drivers said that signals were not working or that the signal came on the instant before impact, yet the investigating officer said that when he arrived, the signals were operating properly and the eyewitnesses said they were operating at the time of, or immediately before, impact?

RAILROAD FACTORS:
1) how many trains cross the crossing each day? 2) how often has this crew used this crossing? 3) what is the number of tracks at the crossing? 4) what type of trains use the tracks (local traffic, long-distance traffic, passenger)? 5) is the crossing ever locked by trains approaching from the opposite direction? 6) what are the crew membersl opinions of the condition of the crossing? 7) is the train crew- aware of any city ordinance affecting the operation of the train? (In this instance, I recall one trial I participated in where the train crew simply indicated that they were not aware ofa city ordinance limiting their speed to 30 miles per hour, and they admitted to going 38 m.p.h.--or nearly 55 feet per second).

HIGHWAY FACTORS:
1) how many vehicles per day use the crossing?
2) how fast can all automobile cross the crossing? If you drive, you no doubt know that many railroad crossings are in such an ill state of repair today that a car practically has to come to a complete stop before proceeding or risk losing some of its parts--is it likely then that your client would have been speeding?
3) what is the condition of the approaches?
4) what is the angle of the approaches, and what is the width?
5) are there any distracting elements to a vehicle as it approaches the crossing, such as railroad cars being parked near the crossing, or buildings blocking the motorist's view of the train, or side roads, or anything else that might confuse the motorist?

COMBINED FACTORS
1) what is the existing type of protection to the motorist?
2) what time of day is the peak traffic flow?
3) is there anything to obstruct the flow of traffic at the crossing?
4) can two cars cross side by side at the crossing?
5) what was the condition of the train'? had it been inspected before leaving the yard? (Usually this is done, so try and obtain a copy of the inspection report.)
6. Was the train equipped with any automatic recording device? (Something akin to the aircraft's "little black box" If so, from this you can easily determine and verify the exact speed of the train at the time of collision.
7) is the train crew aware of any previous collisions at the crossing?
8) what about the rules of the railroad...what timetable was the train operating under? Was the train behind schedule?

Time the lights to indicate if there are crossing lights to indicate how, what kind of warning system is there, is it a 25 second warning, is it a 40 second warning before the lights start to operate. Find out also if there is an inner and an outer circuit covering the operation of gates or lights if that is the case at the crossing. (circuit problems).

In preparation for your opening and closing arguments, I think some of the very salient items that you might want to talk about (I know I do when try my cases) is talk about the history of railroading. Talk about how they have taken advantage of the public and the states for many years because each state and city wants the tracks to run through their city. They gave them grants of land and let them subvert the law in many different ways. That residual effect of the my'th is still being perpetuated even now. You can show that there is a wanton recklessness on their part. You should ask for punitive damages if this is alleged. In that case you can get into the ~ of the railroad and whatever their budget consists of for safety standards. You will find that there really aren't any funds expended for crossing safety. I would try to get information about how the corporation has run the railroad. It teaches its people to proceed at the highest available speed only tells them about applying emergency brakes when they see they can do nothing that they can avoid. Tells them that usually the motorists are at fault and they have disregard and contempt for the people driving on the highway as a class. I think some experts that would be helpful in preperation for your case would be a human factors psychologist or a qualified engineer, and audiologist or sound specialist, perhaps a re-construction expert if necessary, or an automatic signals expert, if one is involved. A railroad engineer who is retired who would testify about what happens as an expert when they are using or driving their engines. A speed tape expert to determine whether the speed tape is accurate. Make sure you get the appropriate graph to interpret it. A brake expert, a person to interpret the central traffic control graph which indicates on the console at the headquarters of the railroad, the location of a locomotive at a given time and at a given place, there might be at the trial. It is not unusual in a major case to spend anywhere from $25,000 to $75,000 in working the file up to the appropriate level of competency in order to obtain your verdict. It is also suggested that you use computer availability to show differences between the various people deposed. There are some programs in the market place where you can cross check testimony with ASCII searches on computer.

If you have any questions, feel free to call our office. We would be delighted to help and assist in any way we can. The number is (216) 241-7001.