Home/Montana Supreme Court/O'Brien v. Great Northern Railway Co.

O'Brien v. Great Northern Railway Co.

400 P.2d 634, 145 Mont. 13, 1965 Mont. LEXIS 438
CourtMontana Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 25, 1965
DocketNo. 10612
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 400 P.2d 634 (O'Brien v. Great Northern Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
O'Brien v. Great Northern Railway Co., 400 P.2d 634, 145 Mont. 13, 1965 Mont. LEXIS 438 (Mo. 1965).

Opinions

MR. JUSTICE DOYLE

delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiffs in an action to recover damages as a result of the death of the plaintiffs’ decedent, Eugene J. O’Brien, in a collision between a Great Northern Railway engine and a car driven by the decedent.

The Great Northern Railway’s facilities existing at the scene of the accident, or as much thereof as is here relevant, consist of one mainline track running east-west and one passing track, both of which run parallel to, and 150 feet north of U. S. Highway 2. Approximately one-half mile east of the town of Chinook these tracks are joined from the south by a spur track which runs to a beet hopper and conveyor located about 760 feet south of Highway 2. As this spur approaches the highway it runs in a northeasterly-southwesterly direction so that it intersects the highway at about a 45 degree angle. This intersection was the scene of the accident which gave rise to the present litigation. Approximately 400 feet west of the beet spur crossing, the defendant operates an additional spur track which intersects Highway 2 in much the same fashion as the one just described. Although this latter spur and the defendant’s operation thereon do not figure directly in the accident they are important for reasons which will be discussed later. This court has had prepared and included a map, which is a composite of plaintiffs’ and defendants’ exhibits, designated as Exhibit “A” for the purpose of clarificaton of the accident area.

[16]*16

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Smith v. Rorvik
751 P.2d 1053 (Montana Supreme Court, 1988)
Safeco Insurance v. Ellinghouse
725 P.2d 217 (Montana Supreme Court, 1986)
Brown v. Markve
700 P.2d 602 (Montana Supreme Court, 1985)
Swenson v. Buffalo Building Co.
635 P.2d 978 (Montana Supreme Court, 1981)
State v. Entze
272 N.W.2d 292 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1978)
McGee v. Burlington Northern, Inc.
571 P.2d 784 (Montana Supreme Court, 1977)
Cross v. Trethewey
471 P.2d 538 (Montana Supreme Court, 1970)
Choat v. McDorman
468 P.2d 354 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1970)
Mang v. Eliasson
458 P.2d 777 (Montana Supreme Court, 1969)
Graham v. Rolandson
435 P.2d 263 (Montana Supreme Court, 1967)
O'BRIEN v. Great Northern Railroad Company
421 P.2d 710 (Montana Supreme Court, 1966)
Boehler v. Sanders
404 P.2d 885 (Montana Supreme Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
400 P.2d 634, 145 Mont. 13, 1965 Mont. LEXIS 438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/obrien-v-great-northern-railway-co-mont-1965.