Lawsuit continues on railroad crossing accident case

A woman involved in a fatal car versus train accident in Boone County will be allowed to go to trial on just one of her claims: whether the railroad company failed to provide an unobstructed view at the crossing because of lack of vegetation control.

Joan Gochenour was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Alice Schooler when the vehicle crossed a railroad track on the Boone/Hendricks County Line Road and was struck by a train operated by CSX Transportation. Schooler and another passenger were killed and Gochenour sustained serious injuries.

Gochenour and her husband sued several parties, including CSX, Boone County officials, and the Indiana Department of Transportation, who are the parties at issue in Joan E. Gochenour and James E. Gochenour v. CSX Transportation, Inc. Gerald Konz, Cody Cooper, et al., 06A01-1407-CT-276. The lawsuit alleged the defendants were careless and negligent in the care of the crossing regarding appropriate warnings, signals, vegetation control and other protective devices.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding federal law preempted the negligence claims since prior to the accident, reflectorized crossbucks had been installed with federal funds under a project approved by the Federal Highway Administration.

No genuine issue of material fact exists as to the participation of federal funds in the installation of crossbuck signs at the County Line Crossing, and therefore the Gochenours’ state law claims against CSXT, Boone County, and the State regarding inadequate warning devices are preempted by federal law,” Judge Margret Robb wrote. “However, there remains a genuine issue of material fact to be resolved at trial regarding whether the duty to maintain an unobscured view for a motorist at the County Line Crossing has been breached by CSXT’s failure to control vegetation within 1,500 feet of the crossing.”

The affidavits introduced on this issue present different versions of whether CSX breached the duty to Gochenour by allowing the view of an oncoming train to be obscured by overgrown vegetation.

“Pictures showing what those aboard the train could see do not prove what those in a car could see – which is the material fact here,” the judge wrote. “The Gochenours’ designated evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact because the conflicting affidavits about whether and where there were obstructions to the view of an oncoming train by an eastbound car create a factual issue that is best resolved by the fact-finder at trial.”