Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...that the court's instruction that a violation of Section 351.03 constituted negligence was error; 3) that the court's instruction that violation of an industry standard was evidence of negligence was error; 4) that exclusion of the last sentence of Section 316.171, Florida Statutes, in the court's instructions to the jury on statutory crossing warning requirements was error; 5) that the damages awarded were so grossly excessive as to require a new trial; and 6) that the trial court erred in denying the Railroad's motion for directed verdict....

...of the tracks. This sign is simply a 36-inch yellow disc marked with a black X flanked by a black letter R to the left and right. Five feet beyond and 20 feet to the right of the DOT sign there is a rectangular warning sign of the type described in Section 316.171....

...safety of railroad train crews operating trains across such crossings." A proviso of Section 351.03, Florida Statutes, not read to the jury stated: "This requirement for posting signs shall not apply to railroad crossings having signs as required by s. 316.171." Section 316.171, Florida Statutes, states: "Signs at dangerous crossings....

...r maintain additional signs or reflectors at such crossings." (Emphasis added) The Railroad, argues, unpersuasively, that the trial court erred in giving the instruction on Section 351.03, Florida Statutes, without including the proviso referring to Section 316.171, Florida Statutes, urging that, because the D.O.T. had erected advance warning signs at the accident crossing, in the instant case, it (pursuant to the above, underlined sentence of Section 316.171) was not liable to erect any warning signs at the crossing. Section 316.158, Florida Statutes, authorizes the Department of Transportation to designate particularly dangerous highway grade crossings for the purpose of erecting traffic control devices. Section 316.171, Florida Statutes, requires a railroad to erect a special signboard at such D.O.T.-declared, dangerous crossings, unless the D.O.T. has already placed railroad warning signs at such crossings. Had this particular crossing been designated as a dangerous crossing pursuant to Section 316.171, the Department of Transportation could have placed its own railroad warning signs at the actual site of the crossing, as well as the yellow, circular advanced warning signs....

...placed such crossing site warning signs, the crossbucks required by Section 351.03 would be rendered unnecessarily duplicative and the railroad would have been relieved of its duty to place the crossbucks by the operation of the above, emphasized sentence of Section 316.171. If the crossing in this case had been declared dangerous pursuant to Section 316.171 and the D.O.T....

...t required to, and did not, place railroad warning signs at the actual crossing. It remained the Railroad's responsibility to mark the crossing site with crossbucks as required by Section 351.03 and it failed to do so. Accordingly, its reliance upon Section 316.171 is totally without merit....

...Defendants also contend that Federal law preempts a state from imposing upon a railroad the duty to determine the adequacy of traffic control devices at public crossings since the Federal law places this duty upon the public agency with jurisdictional authority. As to the first issue presented by Plaintiff, Section 316.171, Florida Statutes (1989) provides that: Every railroad company operating or leasing any track intersecting a public road at grade and upon which railroad trains are operated shall erect traffic control devices that are necessary to co...

...s. This requires joint responsibility in the traffic control function between the public agency and the railroad. The determination of need and selection of devices at a grade crossing is made by the public agency with jurisdictional authority. Both section 316.171, Florida Statutes and the Uniform Traffic Control Manual indicate that the Railroad has a duty. Section 316.171 mandates that the railroad has the duty to erect traffic control devices....

...gov. Accordingly, Section 351.03 allocates to railroad companies the responsibility to install and maintain the minimum, necessary traffic control device at public or private railroad-highway grade crossings. FLA. STAT. § 351.03(1). Florida Statute Section 316.171 provides, in relevant part: Every railroad company operating or leasing any track intersecting a public road at grade and upon which railroad trains are operated shall erect traffic control devices that are necessary to conform with t...

...nsibility for the public road. Any change in the design of a traffic control device in the uniform system of traffic control devices applies only at new installations and at locations where replacements of existing devices are being made. Fla. Stat. § 316.171. As with Section 351.03, Section 316.171's reference to "the uniform system of traffic control devices adopted pursuant to s....

...37 (M.D.Fla.1992), have permitted such claims to proceed against railroad companies, that point is to no avail. A significant change has occurred. Florida law now looks to the MUTCD as a guide to implementing traffic-control devices at railroad-highway grade crossings, FLA. STAT. §§ 351.03, 316.171; and, according to the MUTCD, it is up to the appropriate regulatory agency to determine the need and selection of such devices, MUTCD § 8A.01....

...By comparison, Florida's current statutory framework, along with its reliance on the MUTCD, is more consistent with Wallace, and reveals that Louallen, Webb, Buchman, and (accordingly) Smith no longer represent the law of Florida. See FLA. STAT. §§ 351.03, 316.171, 335.141....

...n and in any such event, so long as said automatic signals are maintained in force and effect, it shall be unnecessary for the railroad companies to comply, and such railroad companies are herein and hereby relieved from the duty of complying with, ss. 316.171 and 351.03 relating to signboards and crossing signs....