F: TC ruled in favor of P, and AC affirmed
With the violation of railroad’s speed regulation, the D collided with the P’s car while P was trying to crossing the railroad track. I: Whether the excessive speed of the train, was a cause in fact of the fatal collision
R: Neg. is the CIF of injury to another if it is a substantial factor in causing the harm
The fatal accident would have occurred irrespective of the excessive speed of the train.
A: The court weighs the evidence and finds that if the train had been going the proper speed, the collision would have happened anyway. Therefore, the train’s excessive speed cannot be said to have been the cause-in-fact of the collision.
The court rejects an “escape theory” on the part of the plaintiff that claims that if the train had been going slower, the driver of the car might have had enough time to get away. The court says that this is not supported by evidence, and is in fact “pure conjecture”.
Co: breach of safety regulations -> per se negligence
Must identify what is the negligence (driving over the speed limit) -> even if driving at a normal speed, injury would have still occurred.
This is concurrent – railroad company’s speed and driver’s negligence