56.000 Railroad Crossings; Signals Outside Municipalities (Blowpost Law) | Pdf Doc Docx | Georgia_JI

 Railroad Crossings 
56.000 Railroad Crossings; Signals Outside Municipalities (Blowpost Law) | Pdf Doc Docx | Georgia_JI

Last updated:

56.000 Railroad Crossings; Signals Outside Municipalities (Blowpost Law)

Start Your Free Trial $ 13.99
200 Ratings
What you get:
  • Instant access to fillable Microsoft Word or PDF forms.
  • Minimize the risk of using outdated forms and eliminate rejected fillings.
  • Largest forms database in the USA with more than 80,000 federal, state and agency forms.
  • Download, edit, auto-fill multiple forms at once in MS Word using our Forms Workflow Ribbon
  • Trusted by 1,000s of Attorneys and Legal Professionals

Description

56.000 Railroad Crossings; Signals Outside Municipalities (Blowpost Law) Upon the line of each railway at a point 400 yards from the center of its intersection at grade with any public road or street used by the public generally in crossing the tracks of the railway and on each side of the crossing, there shall be erected by the railroad company operating the railway a blowpost to indicate the existence of the crossing. The engineer operating the locomotive engine of any railroad train moving over the tracks of the railroad shall be required, upon reaching the blowpost, as a signal of approach to the crossing, to blow through the whistle two long blasts, one short blast and one long blast, said blasts to be loud and distinct. In addition to these requirements, after reaching the blowpost farthest removed from the crossing and while approaching the crossing, the engineer shall keep and maintain a constant and vigilant lookout along the track ahead of the engine and shall otherwise exercise due care in approaching the crossing in order to avoid injuring any person or property that may be on the crossing or upon the line of the railway at any point within fifty feet of the crossing. O.C.G.A. §46-8-190 Luke v. Powell, 63 Ga. App. 795, 802 (1940) The law does not undertake to say what would constitute a constant and vigilant lookout nor due care in approaching the crossing. What would constitute a reasonable and substantial compliance with those requirements is a question for you, the jury, to determine in light of all the facts and circumstances of the case. A violation of any of the requirements of this code section would constitute negligence, but it would remain for you, the jury, to determine under all the facts and circumstances of the case whether such negligence was the proximate cause of injury. Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Johnston, 45 Ga. App. 773 (1932)

Our Products