316.1575 Obedience to traffic control devices at railroad-highway grade crossings.—
(1) A person cycling, walking, or driving a vehicle and approaching a railroad-highway grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this section must stop within 50 feet but not less than 15 feet from the nearest rail of such railroad and may not proceed until the railroad tracks are clear and he or she can do so safely. This subsection applies when:
(a) A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train or railroad track equipment;
(b) A crossing gate is lowered or a law enforcement officer or a human flagger gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train or railroad track equipment;
(c) An approaching railroad train or railroad track equipment emits an audible signal or the railroad train or railroad track equipment, by reason of its speed or nearness to the crossing, is an immediate hazard; or
(d) An approaching railroad train or railroad track equipment is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to the railroad-highway grade crossing, regardless of the type of traffic control devices installed at the crossing.
(2) A person may not drive a vehicle through, around, or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad-highway grade crossing while the gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.
(3) A person who violates this section commits a noncriminal traffic infraction, punishable pursuant to chapter 318 as:
(a) A pedestrian violation; or
(b) If the infraction resulted from the operation of a vehicle, as a moving violation.
1. For a first violation, the person must pay a fine of $500 or perform 25 hours of community service and shall have 6 points assessed against his or her driver license as set forth in s. 322.27(3)(d)7.
2. For a second or subsequent violation, the person must pay a fine of $1,000 and shall have an additional 6 points assessed against his or her driver license as set forth in s. 322.27(3)(d)7.
Cited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 111
...[1] The respondent, Addison, received permanent injuries in 1983 when petitioner Seaboard's train struck the pickup truck operated by Addison. The evidence at trial showed that the train blew its whistle prior to entering the crossing as required by section 316.1575(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1983), but that Addison either did not hear it or failed to hear it in time to avoid the collision....
...The jury found Seaboard eighty percent negligent and awarded damages of $4,010,196.00 which was reduced to $3,208,156.80 by Addison's twenty percent comparative negligence. On appeal, Seaboard argued that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the requirements of section 316.1575(1)(c) was reversible error....
...of the railroad. 481 So.2d at 5. We disagree with the district court's holding. Its error lies in analyzing Seaboard's requested instruction on the basis of Standard Instruction 4.14(b). At issue here is respondent's alleged violation of a statute, section 316.1575(1)(c), part of the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law....
...It is possible that there was a lack of evidentiary support for the requested instructions, but in order to dispell any uncertainty, we disapprove the rulings in both cases to the extent they conflict with our holding here today. Sub judice, Seaboard's main defense was that it sounded the audible warning required by section 316.1575 and that Addison failed to stop as is required by the same statute. We note that the trial court did instruct the jury on the speed limits applicable to both the train and the truck, and we surmise that the trial court's refusal to give an instruction on respondent's violation of section 316.1575 was based on the erroneous view that the question was controlled by the comments to Standard Instruction 4.14(b)....
Cited 17 times | Published | Supreme Court of Florida | 1996 WL 295106
...Williams, 587 So.2d 612 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); City of Tamarac v. Garchar, 398 So.2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Menard v. O'Malley, 327 So.2d 905 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). In Addison, this Court explained: At issue here is respondent's alleged violation of a statute, section 316.1575(1)(c), part of the Florida Uniform Traffic Control Law....
Cited 11 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal
...thing the jury might not understand." The court later said that if the charge were error, "it should be a harmless error because it's exactly what the jury is entitled to consider... ." [2] For example, charges incorporating complex statutes such as Section 316.1575, Florida Statutes (1977), requiring driver "[o]bedience to signal indicating approach of train," tend to cancel any benefit in adhering to the committee's recommendation that the trial court not charge in common law terms on "[r]ecip...
Cited 6 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2561
...he train. There was evidence that the train and the truck were exceeding indicated speed limits when the accident occurred. The case was submitted to the jury. The trial court refused to give certain instructions requested by Seaboard as to Sections 316.1575 and 316.183, Florida Statutes (1983). Section 316.1575 obligates a driver to stop within 15' of railroad tracks when a train blows its whistle 1500' from the crossing and is an immediate hazard; Section 316.183 requires appropriately reduced speed at railroad crossings....
...by either party was evidence of negligence. Instruction on this statute would therefore have been "argumentative and repetitive," Florida East Coast Rwy. Co. v. McKinney, 227 So.2d 99, 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969), and was properly denied. With regard to Section 316.1575, this statute requires nothing more than that a motorist stop before the tracks when a train is approaching....
...Specifically, Dade County has enacted Ordinances 82-56 and 82-18 which prohibit the sounding of train horns and whistles at designated railroad crossings during specific hours for the purpose of noise control in residential neighborhoods. Plaintiffs contend the local ordinance is in conflict with Florida Statute § 316.1575 which requires that the driver of a vehicle must stop at a railroad crossing if a train gives a signal within the specified distance at a clearly audible sound level....
This Florida statute resource is curated by Graham W. Syfert, Esq., a Jacksonville, Florida personal injury and workers' compensation attorney. Attorney Syfert regularly works with Chapter 316 in the context of traffic and automobile accident law and represents clients throughout Northeast Florida. For legal consultation, call 904-383-7448.
