802. Reasonable Warning of Approach
A train operator must warn others that the train is approaching a crossing by activating the train's [bell] [or] [whistle] [or] [siren] if a reasonable train operator would do so. The warning must be adequate for the existing conditions, including conditions that affect a driver's ability to observe the train's approach.
Directions for Use
Use this instruction only if the accident occurred in within a city's limits. Public Utilities Code section 7604 provides that a train crew must ring a bell or, except in cities, sound a whistle for a distance of at least 1,320 feet (a quarter mile) before crossing any street, road, or highway and until the train has passed the crossing. Under section 7604(a)(1), operators have discretion to sound warning devices in cities only. Accordingly, if the accident did not occur in a city, use CACI No. 801, Duty to Comply With Safety Regulations.
This instruction should be used when the plaintiff contends that the train operator failed to give adequate warning that the train was approaching the crossing. The scope of a railroad's duty regarding the installation of traffic control and warning devices at the intersection is covered by CACI No. 805, Installing Warning Systems.
Sources and Authority
Public Utilities Code section 7604(a)(1) provides: "In a city, the ringing of the bell or the sounding of the steam whistle, air siren, or air whistle shall be at the discretion of the operator of the locomotive engine." This section does not prohibit the sounding of a warning device in a city, and if a defendant should have sounded the warning device in the exercise of due care, it is not excused by this code section. (See Southern Pacific Co. v. Haight (9th Cir. 1942) 126 F.2d 900, 909.)
Public Utilities Code section 7604 provides, in part, that a train crew must ring a bell or, except in cities, sound a whistle for a distance of at least 1,320 feet (a quarter mile) before crossing any street, road, or highway and until the train has passed the crossing. Statutes set forth nly a minimum standard of care. (See Marquis v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 335, 345 [44 Cal.Rptr. 367].)
The failure to sound a train whistle or bell or to give some other warning can be sufficient, by itself, to support a finding of negligence. (Peri v. Los Angeles Junction Ry. Co. (1943) 22 Cal.2d 111, 125 [137 P.2d 441].)
"It was the duty of those in charge of the train to give notice of the approach of the engine when approaching the highway and its traveling over the highway by all warnings reasonably necessary under the conditions existing at the time and place of the accident." (Downey v. Santa Fe Transportation Co. (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 720, 727 [286 P.2d 40].)
" '[T]he conditions with respect to the ability of a traveler on the highway to observe the train approaching the crossing and the character of the crossing may be a basis for the conclusion of the trier of fact that the defendant failed to conform to the required standard of care in respect to the warnings it must give of the approach of the train to the crossing.' " (Downey, supra, 134 Cal.App.2d at p. 726, internal citation omitted.)
Secondary Sources
2 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 23, Carriers, § 23.26[4] (Matthew Bender)
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 1996) Railroad Crossings, § 12.4
42 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 485, Railroads (Matthew Bender)
(New September 2003)