Corbello v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
Louisiana Court of Appeal
586 So. 2d 1383 (1991)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Sabrina Corbello was killed when her car was struck at a railroad crossing by a train owned and operated by Southern Pacific Transportation Company (Southern Pacific) (defendant). Corbello’s parents, Paul and Dorothy Corbello (plaintiffs), brought a wrongful-death action against Southern Pacific. At trial, Southern Pacific employees testified that the train’s crew timely sounded the train’s whistle before the train reached the crossing. Southern Pacific also called two other witnesses who were near the crossing at the time. Those witnesses also testified that the crew timely sounded the whistle. However, the Corbellos presented testimony from several people who lived near the crossing and who said that Southern Pacific’s train crews customarily did not sound the train’s whistle as the train approached the crossing. Southern Pacific objected to the admission of the witnesses’ negative testimony about the train crews’ customary failure to sound the whistle, but the trial court allowed the testimony. After hearing the evidence, the jury determined that Southern Pacific was 75 percent at fault for the collision and awarded damages to the Corbellos. Southern Pacific appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stoker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
