Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 65-1-175 (2026)

Jurisdiction and powers of Department of Transportation with respect to roadway/railway crossings

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaMiss. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The jurisdiction of the Mississippi Department of Transportation shall be exclusive with respect to public roadway/railroad crossings either at grade or otherwise except to the extent that its jurisdiction is preempted by valid federal statute, regulation or order.

(2) The Mississippi Department of Transportation shall have power, upon its own motion or upon complaint filed, after having made proper investigation, and after notice and hearing, if requested, to abolish any public roadway/railroad crossing heretofore or hereafter established, to vacate and close that part of the roadway on such crossing abolished, and to erect barricades across the roadway in such a manner as to prevent the use of such crossing as a roadway, when, in the opinion of the department, the public necessity served by the crossing in question is not such as to justify the further retention thereof. In any event, if a roadway/railway crossing is the subject of closure proceedings, both the local governmental entity and the rail carrier shall be given formal written notice by the department before any hearing is conducted by the department. However, a public hearing by the department to abolish a crossing shall not be required when the public roadway authority in interest vacates the roadway. In such instances, the rail carrier, following notification to the department and roadway authority, shall remove any grade crossing warning devices and the grade crossing surface.

(3) The Mississippi Department of Transportation shall have power, upon its own motion, or upon complaint, and after having made proper investigation and after notice and hearing, if requested, to require the installation of adequate and appropriate luminous reflective warning signs, luminous flashing signals, crossing gates illuminated at night, or other warning devices in order to promote the health and safety of the public. Luminous flashing signals or crossing gate devices heretofore installed at grade crossings and those installations hereafter approved by the department shall be deemed adequate and appropriate. The department shall have authority to determine the number, type and location of such signs, signals, gates or other protective devices which shall conform as near as may be with generally recognized national standards, and the department shall have authority to prescribe the division of the cost of the installation and subsequent maintenance of such signs, signals, gates or other warning devices between the rail carrier or carriers, the public highway authority in interest and the Mississippi Department of Transportation. In no event shall any costs assessed against either the public highway authority in interest or the rail carrier exceed ten percent (10%) of the costs of the materials and installation.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as amending, repealing or modifying any duty or responsibility that railroads had, if any, immediately before July 1, 1992, with regard to any applicable state or federal laws, statutes, regulations or orders pertaining to the maintenance of signals, signs and warning devices at roadway/railroad crossings.

Laws, 1992, ch. 496, § 60; Laws, 2007, ch. 572, § 2, eff. 7/1/2007.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2015 · leading case: Irby v. Travis, 935 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Irby v. Travis, 935 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 2006). · cites it 3× “Illinois Central also asserts that Miss.Code Ann. § 65-1-175 entrusts the sole, exclusive jurisdiction to the Mississippi Department of Transportation for the installation of active warning devices, such as lights and gates, at public highway/rail crossings.”

Alabama Great S. R.R. Co. v. Chantel Jobes, 156 So. 3d 871 (Miss. 2015). · cites it 4× “imony offered by [AGSR] that the installation of highway appurtances [sic], such as guardrails or impact attenuators, at the subject grade separation/underpass is beyond the scope of maintenance duties owed by [AGSR] at the subject grade separation/underpass and would fall…”

Smallwood v. Illinois Cent. R.R., 203 F. Supp. 2d 686 (S.D. Miss. 2002). “” Miss. Code Ann § 65-1-175. Under this statute, the MDOT: [SJhall have the power, upon its own motion, or upon complaint, and after having made proper investigation .”

Bowman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 931 So. 2d 644 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss.Code Ann. § 65-1-175 (Rev.2005). That statute provides that the Department has exclusive jurisdiction with respect to public street crossings of railroad rights of way.”

Woods v. Amtrak, 982 F. Supp. 409 (N.D. Miss. 1997). “Miss.Code Ann. § 65-1-175. The plaintiff has presented no evidence of any failure by the defendant Illinois Central to comply with the requirements of either § 77-9-247 or the Mississippi Department of Transportation.”

Arthur Irby v. Mary Travis (Miss. 2003). · cites it 3× “Illinois Central also asserts that Miss. Code Ann. § 65-1-175 entrusts the sole, exclusive jurisdiction to the Mississippi Department of Transportation for the installation of active warning devices, such as lights and gates, at public highway/rail crossings.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 65-1-175(1) — 1 case

Alabama Great S. R.R. Co. v. Chantel Jobes, 156 So. 3d 871 (Miss. 2015). “imony offered by [AGSR] that the installation of highway appurtances [sic], such as guardrails or impact attenuators, at the subject grade separation/underpass is beyond the scope of maintenance duties owed by [AGSR] at the subject grade separation/underpass and would fall…”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 65-1-175(3) — 1 case

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.