All railroad corporations operating in this state shall maintain their right-of-way at or around any railroad crossing of a public road or highway free from grass, trees, bushes, shrubs, or other growing vegetation which may obstruct the view of pedestrians and vehicle operators using the public highways.
The maintenance of the right-of-way shall be for a distance of fifty feet (50') on each side of the centerline between the rails for the maintenance width and for a distance of one hundred yards (100 yds.) on each side of the centerline from the public road or highway for the maintenance length.
Any railroad corporation failing or refusing to comply with the provisions of this section shall be subject to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500) for each violation.
Railroad crossing was not subject to the provisions of subdivision (a)(1), where it was located on a dirt road on private property, dead-ending at private pond, and not maintained by any governmental authority, nor the object of regular use by the public. Pittman v. Frazer, 129 F.3d 983 (8th Cir. 1997).
Where railroad had allowed vegetation to remain overgrown at a crossing for more than 18 months prior to when a passenger in a garbage truck was severely injured in a collision with a train at that crossing, the railroad's noncompliance with this section regarding keeping the crossing clear could have resulted in liability for fines approaching up to $182,500 per year; hence, on appeal, the court held that punitive damages award was not excessive because it was comparable to such civil sanctions. Union Pac. R.R. v. Barber, 356 Ark. 268, 149 S.W.3d 325, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 940, 125 S. Ct. 320, 160 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2004).
Cited:
Missouri Pac. R.R. v. Star City Gravel Co., 452 F. Supp. 480 (E.D. Ark. 1978); St. Louis Sw. Ry. v. Grider, 321 Ark. 84, 900 S.W.2d 530 (1995).
Union Pac. R.R. v. Barber, 149 S.W.3d 325 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 7דThe complaint alleged that the accident was caused by Union Pacific's failure to control vegetation within its right-of-way in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 23-12-201, failure to properly sound audible warning devices, failure to keep a proper lookout, and operating the train at…”
Missouri Pac. R.R. v. MacKey, 760 S.W.2d 59 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 8דArk.Code Ann. § 23-12-201 (1987) provides that railroads shall "maintain their right-of-way at or around any railroad crossing of a public road or highway free from grass, trees, bushes, shrubs, or other growing vegetation which may obstruct the view of pedestrians and vehicle…”
Stevenson v. Union Pac. R.R., 110 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (E.D. Ark. 2000). · cites it 2דc) The crossings are in violation of A.C.A. § 23-12-201 concerning vegetation along the track at a public road.”
St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co. v. Grider, 900 S.W.2d 530 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 2דAt trial, the jury heard testimony from several witnesses that weeds at the intersection reached heights of up to fifteen feet in contravention of Ark. Code Ann. § 23-12-201 (1993), which mandates that railroad corporations must maintain their rights-of-way free of obstructions.”
Cartwright v. Burlington N. R.R., 908 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Ark. 1995). · cites it 2דTo the extent that plaintiffs can provp that any such overgrown vegetation was/located on Burlington’s right-of-way (as opposed to land owned by the City of Luxora or some other third party), they will have \ a negligence claim that may be submitted to the jury.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-12-201(a)(1) — 1 case
Union Pac. R.R. v. Barber, 149 S.W.3d 325 (Ark. 2004). “The complaint alleged that the accident was caused by Union Pacific's failure to control vegetation within its right-of-way in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 23-12-201, failure to properly sound audible warning devices, failure to keep a proper lookout, and operating the train at…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 23-12-201(a)(l) — 1 case
Cartwright v. Burlington N. R.R., 908 F. Supp. 662 (E.D. Ark. 1995). “To the extent that plaintiffs can provp that any such overgrown vegetation was/located on Burlington’s right-of-way (as opposed to land owned by the City of Luxora or some other third party), they will have \ a negligence claim that may be submitted to the jury.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.