Foley v. New York Central System, 29 N.Y.2d 916 (1972)

When a driver’s view of railroad tracks is obstructed, the ‘no see, no look’ rule (presuming negligence for failing to see an obvious danger) does not automatically apply, and the issue of contributory negligence becomes a factual question for the jury.

Summary

Foley sued New York Central System for damages resulting from a collision between his vehicle and a train. The jury found the railroad negligent for failing to sound a warning, but the key issue was Foley’s alleged contributory negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the presence of foliage obstructing Foley’s view of the tracks made the ‘no see, no look’ rule inapplicable. This meant the question of whether Foley acted reasonably under the circumstances was a factual one properly decided by the jury, and not a matter of law for the court to decide. The decision underscores the importance of considering environmental factors when assessing negligence in right-of-way cases.

Facts

Foley was involved in a collision with a New York Central System train. At trial, Foley and two disinterested witnesses testified that the train did not sound any warning (bell, horn, or whistle) as it approached the crossing. Crucially, evidence was presented showing that Foley’s view of the tracks was obstructed by foliage and shrubbery along the roadbed, ranging from 3 to 14 feet in height. The defendant’s photographs, taken two weeks after the accident, did not accurately depict the scene as it existed on the day of the collision due to changes in the foliage.

Procedural History

The trial court found in favor of Foley. The Appellate Division affirmed, with one dissenter. The dissenter believed that the question of the defendant’s negligence was properly submitted to the jury, but that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s order, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of negligence and concluding that the issue of contributory negligence was a factual one.

Issue(s)

Whether the ‘no see, no look’ rule automatically bars recovery when a driver collides with a train, even if the driver’s view of the tracks is obstructed by foliage?

Holding

No, because the presence of foliage obstructing the driver’s view renders the ‘no see, no look’ rule inapplicable, making the issue of contributory negligence a factual one for the jury to decide.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the ‘no see, no look’ rule, as established in Doltini v. Erie R.R. Co., does not apply when a driver’s view is obstructed. The court emphasized that the jury’s verdict implicitly acknowledged the presence of foliage obstructing the driver’s view. Because of this obstruction, the question of whether Foley exercised reasonable care was a factual determination best left to the jury. The court stated, “The presence of foliage obstructing the driver’s view, implicit in the jury’s verdict, renders inapplicable, in this case, the ‘no see, no look’ rule of Doltini v Erie R.R. Co.” The court also noted that it is constitutionally barred from reviewing factual determinations made by a jury. This ruling reinforces the principle that negligence analysis must be fact-specific, taking into account all relevant circumstances, including environmental factors that may impact a driver’s ability to perceive danger. It serves as a reminder that the ‘no see, no look’ rule is not an absolute bar to recovery and that juries are best positioned to assess the reasonableness of a party’s conduct when faced with obstructed views or other mitigating circumstances.