CACI No. 803. Regulating Speed
Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2023 edition)
Download PDF
803.Regulating Speed
[A railroad company] [A train operator] must use reasonable care to
control the train’s speed as it approaches and passes through a railroad
crossing. The [railroad company] [train operator] must control train
speed with due regard for the safety of human life and property, taking
into consideration the location and conditions of the crossing.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
This instruction may not be appropriate in certain cases. Regulations adopted by the
Secretary of Transportation pursuant to the Federal Railroad Safety Act preempt
state common-law negligence claims based on general allegations of “excessive
speed.” (CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Easterwood (1993) 507 U.S. 658, 675 [113
S.Ct. 1732, 123 L.Ed.2d 387].) However, a negligence action based on a duty to
slow or stop a train to avoid a specific, individual hazard is not preempted. (CSX
Transportation, Inc., supra, 507 U.S. at 676, fn. 15.)
Sources and Authority
• “We hold that . . . federal regulations adopted by the Secretary of
Transportation pre-empt respondent’s negligence action only insofar as it asserts
that petitioner’s train was traveling at an excessive speed.” (CSX Transportation,
Inc., supra, 507 U.S. at p. 676.)
• “While it is true that no rate of speed is negligence per se in the absence of a
statute or ordinance, it does not follow that a railroad company will be permitted
to run its trains under all conditions at any rate of speed it may choose. It must
regulate its speed with proper regard for the safety of human life and property,
especially when running through towns and cities. . . . [T]he question whether
or not a rate of speed is excessive is one of fact for the jury.” (Young v. Pacific
Electric Ry. Co. (1929) 208 Cal. 568, 572-573 [283 P. 61].)
• “The ‘reasonably prudent person’ test applies also to the speed at which a train
approaches and passes a crossing, and material in the application of that test is
‘that no unnecessary risk shall be cast upon the public’ considering the ‘location
and surroundings’ of the crossing involved. Specially mentioned is a ‘crossing in
a thickly populated community and extensively used.’ ” (Rice v. Southern Pacific
Co. (1967) 247 Cal.App.2d 701, 707 [55 Cal.Rptr. 840], internal citations
omitted.)
• “[I]t is for the jury to say whether the speed of a train was too high for a
particular intersection.” (Romo v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1977) 71
Cal.App.3d 909, 916 [139 Cal.Rptr. 787].)
• Even when crossing protection is provided and the company speed limit is not
600
exceeded, speeding is still a question of fact. (Herrera v. Southern Pacific Co.
(1957) 155 Cal.App.2d 781, 787 [318 P.2d 784].)
Secondary Sources
6 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 1039, 1239, 1240,
1479
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) Railroad Crossings, § 12.5
2 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 23, Carriers, § 23.26[6] (Matthew Bender)
42 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 485, Railroads, § 485.64
(Matthew Bender)
RAILROAD CROSSINGS CACI No. 803
601
© Judicial Council of California.
