351.03
Railroad-highway grade-crossing warning signs and signals; audible warnings; exercise of reasonable care; blocking highways, roads, and streets during darkness.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
351.03 Railroad-highway grade-crossing warning signs and signals; audible warnings; exercise of reasonable care; blocking highways, roads, and streets during darkness.—
(1) Every railroad company shall exercise reasonable care for the safety of motorists whenever its track crosses a highway and shall be responsible for erecting and maintaining crossbuck grade-crossing warning signs in accordance with the uniform system of traffic control devices adopted pursuant to s. 316.0745. Such crossbuck signs shall be erected and maintained at all public or private railroad-highway grade crossings.
(2) Advance railroad warning signs and pavement markings shall be installed and maintained at public railroad-highway grade crossings in accordance with the uniform system of traffic control devices by the governmental entity having jurisdiction over or maintenance responsibility for the highway or street. All persons approaching a railroad-highway grade crossing shall exercise reasonable care for their own safety and for the safety of railroad train crews as well as for the safety of train or vehicle passengers.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), any railroad train approaching within 1,500 feet of a public railroad-highway grade crossing shall emit a signal audible for such distance.
(4)(a) The Department of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administration may authorize a municipality or county to implement a whistle ban provided the following conditions are met:
1. A traffic operations system is implemented to secure railroad-highway grade crossings for the purpose of preventing vehicles from going around, under, or through lowered railroad gates.
2. The municipality or county has in effect an ordinance that unconditionally prohibits the sounding of railroad train horns and whistles during the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. at all public railroad-highway grade crossings within the municipality or county and where the municipality, county, or state has erected signs at the crossing announcing that railroad train horns and whistles may not be sounded during such hours. Signs so erected shall be in conformance with the uniform system of traffic control devices as specified in s. 316.0745.
(b) Upon final approval and verification by the department and the Federal Railroad Administration that such traffic operations system meets all state and federal safety and traffic regulations and that such railroad-highway grade crossings can be secured, the municipality or county may pass an ordinance prohibiting the sounding of audible warning devices by trains upon approaching such railroad-highway grade crossings between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.
(c) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to nullify the liability provisions of s. 768.28.
(5)(a) Whenever a railroad train engages in a switching operation or stops so as to block a public highway, street, or road at any time from one-half hour after sunset to one-half hour before sunrise, the crew of the railroad train shall cause to be placed a lighted fusee or other visual warning device in both directions from the railroad train upon or at the edge of the pavement of the highway, street, or road to warn approaching motorists of the railroad train blocking the highway, street, or road. However, this subsection does not apply to railroad-highway grade crossings at which there are automatic warning devices properly functioning or at which there is adequate lighting.
History.—s. 34, ch. 1987, 1874; RS 2264; GS 2841; ch. 7940, 1919; RGS 4529; CGL 6592; s. 1, ch. 73-336; s. 52, ch. 76-31; s. 5, ch. 80-289; ss. 2, 3, ch. 81-318; ss. 1, 12, 14, ch. 82-90; s. 1, ch. 84-73; s. 39, ch. 86-243; ss. 2, 5, 6, ch. 92-192; s. 143, ch. 99-13.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1960–2010 · leading case: St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. White
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co. v. White (1979)
“The court went on to instruct that if the jury found such negligence to exist, they must then determine whether such negligence was the legal cause of the injury.”
Liboy Ex Rel. Liboy v. Rogero Ex Rel. Rogero (2005)
“(2) Advance railroad warning signs and pavement markings shall be installed and maintained at public railroad-highway grade crossings in accordance with the uniform system of traffic control devices by the governmental entity having jurisdiction over or maintenance…”
Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Martinez (1991)
“At issue in this case is Fla.Stat. § 351.03(4)(a), which was enacted in 1984.”
Bifulco v. Patient Business & Financial Services, Inc. (2010)
“”); § 351.03(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to nullify the liability provisions of s.”
Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Griffis (1979)
“However, Griffis argues that these existing warning signals were inadequate and mechanical warning signals should have been installed.”
Jones v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (1960)
“2d 812, 816 , decided by the United States Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, the Court, through Judge Strum, commented upon Section 351.03, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., as follows: “ ‘ * * * no train shall go through any of the traveled streets within the corporate limits of the City…”
Tynan v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad (1971)
“Section 351.03, F. S.A. Since there was testimony the plaintiff’s automobile was going at approximately 40 miles per hour and the train the same, and the plaintiff had the right to assume the train was going 20 miles per hour according to the train speed limit of the city…”
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad v. Louallen (1985)
“Appellant essentially contends in that point that the trial court erred in instructing the jury, and in allowing appellee’s counsel to argue to the jury, that appellant could be found negligent for failing to provide additional crossing protection and warnings other than that…”
McNulty v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (1966)
“It was proven that the crossbuck signs required by Florida Statutes § 351.03, F.S.A. was visible 400 feet from the crossing, that from 100 feet away from the crossing visibility was good for two thousand feet down the railroad track, and that the automobile struck the second…”
McNulty v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (1967)
““It was proven that the crossbuck signs required by Florida Statutes § 351.03, F.S.A. was visible 400 feet from the crossing, that from 100 feet away from the crossing visibility was good for two thousand feet down the railroad track, and that the automobile struck the second…”
— 351.03(3) — 1 case
Liboy Ex Rel. Liboy v. Rogero Ex Rel. Rogero (2005)
“(2) Advance railroad warning signs and pavement markings shall be installed and maintained at public railroad-highway grade crossings in accordance with the uniform system of traffic control devices by the governmental entity having jurisdiction over or maintenance…”
— 351.03(4)(a) — 1 case
Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Martinez (1991)
“At issue in this case is Fla.Stat. § 351.03(4)(a), which was enacted in 1984.”
— 351.03(4)(c) — 1 case
Bifulco v. Patient Business & Financial Services, Inc. (2010)
“”); § 351.03(4)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004) (“Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to nullify the liability provisions of s.”
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.