La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 32:171 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§171. Motor vehicles approaching railroad crossings; reporting violations; penalties

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Thomas v. Missouri Pac. RR Co., 466 So. 2d 1280 (La. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas v. Missouri Pac. RR Co., 466 So. 2d 1280 (La. 1985). · cites it 3× “45:563 [5] , a statute which had been tacitly repealed by the passage of R.S. 32:171, enacted as Act 310 of 1962. See Watson v.”
Lee v. Missouri Pac. RR Co., 540 So. 2d 287 (La. 1989). · cites it 3× “Lee was cited for failing to yield at a railroad crossing contrary to LSA-R.S. 32:171. The DOTD receives periodic computer printouts from the Department of Public Safety concerning accidents.”
Watson v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RR, 355 So. 2d 1366 (La. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 5× “45:563 has been impliedly repealed by LSA-R.S. 32:171; (5) in holding that LSA-R.”
Thomas v. Missouri Pac. RR Co., 451 So. 2d 1152 (La. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “R.S. 32:171 A(3). The Thomas vehicle came into sight when the train was approximately 250 feet from the crossing.”
Burk v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RR Co., 529 So. 2d 515 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “32:168, and such railroad train, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard .”
Kendrick v. Louisiana & North West R. Co., 766 So. 2d 705 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “R.S. 32:171 and 175. Section 171 provides, in pertinent part: § 171.”
Wilkerson v. Kansas City S. Ry., 772 So. 2d 268 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “R.S. 32:171 which provides, in pertinent part: A.”
LeJeune v. Union Pac. RR, 712 So. 2d 491 (La. 1998). “32:169 requires the railroad to erect cross buck signs not more than fifty feet nor less than fifteen feet from crossings. Moreover, La. R.S. 32:168 imposes an affirmative duty on the train crew to blow the train's horn continuously from at least 300 yards out until the train…”
Fisher v. Walters, 428 So. 2d 431 (La. 1983). · cites it 2× “He did not violate LSA-R.S. 32:171, [7] because the train was over 900 *438 feet away and not in hazardous proximity to the crossing.”
Rivere v. Union Pac. R. Co., 647 So. 2d 1140 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “[6] A motorist's responsibility when driving over a railroad crossing is defined in LSA-R.S. 32:171. Under this statute a motorist is required to stop within fifty feet but not less than fifteen feet from the nearest rail when: (1) A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal…”
Whitehead v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 758 So. 2d 211 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 32:171. When approaching a train crossing, a motorist is expected to use his sense of sight and hearing to ascertain whether a train is approaching before traversing the crossing and is required to proceed with caution when crossing the tracks.”
Corbello v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 586 So. 2d 1383 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “Under LSA-R.S. 32:171, Sabrina had a duty to stop between fifty and fifteen feet from the railroad grade crossing when an approaching train was plainly visible and in hazardous proximity to the crossing.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:171(A) — 5 cases
Thomas v. Missouri Pac. RR Co., 466 So. 2d 1280 (La. 1985). “45:563 [5] , a statute which had been tacitly repealed by the passage of R.S. 32:171, enacted as Act 310 of 1962. See Watson v.”
Burk v. Illinois Cent. Gulf RR Co., 529 So. 2d 515 (La. Ct. App. 1988). “32:168, and such railroad train, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard .”
Percle v. Oubre, 564 So. 2d 352 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
Lejeune v. Union Pac. R.R., 693 So. 2d 804 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
Theopholia Thomas v. Bnsf Ry. Co. (La. 2026).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:171(A)(4) — 2 cases
Goodwyne v. People's Moss Gin, Inc., 694 So. 2d 1101 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
Rodriguez v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 395 So. 2d 1369 (La. Ct. App. 1981).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:171(B) — 3 cases
Lee v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 566 So. 2d 1052 (La. Ct. App. 1990).
Elkins v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 922 So. 2d 1188 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
Theopholia Thomas v. Bnsf Ry. Co. (La. 2026).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 32:171(E) — 3 cases
Plank v. Town of Rayville, 764 So. 2d 1194 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Theopholia Thomas v. Bnsf Ry. Co. (La. 2026).
Moreau v. Burlington N. Santa Fe, 919 So. 2d 862 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
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.