Mississippi Code

Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249 (2026)

Obedience to signal indicating approach of train; penalties

✓ current as of July 2026

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

(1) Whenever any person driving a vehicle approaches a railroad grade crossing under any of the circumstances stated in this subsection, the driver of such vehicle shall stop within fifty (50) feet but not less than fifteen (15) feet from the nearest rail of such railroad, and shall not proceed until he can do so safely. The foregoing requirements shall apply when one or more of the following circumstances exists:
- (a) A clearly visible electric or mechanical signal device gives warning of the immediate approach of a railroad train; or
- (b) A crossing gate is lowered or when a human flagman gives or continues to give a signal of the approach or passage of a railroad train; or
- (c) A railroad train approaching within approximately nine hundred (900) feet of the highway crossing emits a signal in accordance with Section 77-9-225, and such railroad train, by reason of its speed or nearness to such crossing, is an immediate hazard; or
- (d) An approaching railroad train is plainly visible and is in hazardous proximity to such crossing.

(2) No person shall drive any vehicle through, around or under any crossing gate or barrier at a railroad crossing while such gate or barrier is closed or is being opened or closed.

(3) In the trial of all actions to recover personal injury or property damages, sustained by any driver of such vehicles for collision of said vehicle and train in which action it may appear that the said driver may have violated any of the provisions hereof, the question of whether or not the said violation was the sole or approximate cause of the accident and injury shall be for the jury to determine. The violation of this section shall not of itself defeat recovery, and the question of negligence or the violation aforesaid shall be left to the jury; and the comparative negligence statutes and prima facie statute of this state shall apply in these cases as in other cases of negligence.

(4) At any railroad grade crossing provided with visible railroad crossbuck signs without automatic electric or mechanical signal devices, crossing gates or a human flagman giving a signal of the approach or passage of a train, the driver of a vehicle shall, in obedience to such railroad crossbuck sign, yield the right-of-way and slow to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions, and shall stop if required for safety at a clearly marked stop line, or if no stop line, within fifty (50) feet, but not less than fifteen (15) feet, from the nearest rail of the railroad, and shall not proceed until he can do so safely.

(5) Every person, company or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or imprisoned not more than thirty (30) days, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Codes, 1930, §§ 6124, 6126; 1942, §§ 7776, 7778; Laws, 1924, ch. 320; Laws, 1974, ch. 525, § 2; Laws, 1995, ch. 512, § 1; Laws, 2000, ch. 543, § 1; Laws, 2004, ch. 448, § 2, eff. 7/1/2004.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 25 cases, 1976–2012 · leading case: Alabama Great S. R. Co. v. Lee, 826 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alabama Great S. R. Co. v. Lee, 826 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 8× “AGS also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Pigford's violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249 was negligence per se.”

Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hawkins, 830 So. 2d 1162 (Miss. 2002). · cites it 4× “Further, since Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249 , from which Instruction P-1 is taken, is written in the alternative, the jury could find for the Plaintiffs under either theory.”

Baker v. Canadian Nat'l/Illinois Cent. R.R., 536 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(1) (requiring a driver to stop at railroad tracks when locomotive emits signal within nine-hundred feet of crossing); Miss.”

Richardson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 923 So. 2d 1002 (Miss. 2006). · cites it 3× “While Richardson's proposed instruction P-12 mirrored Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(1)(d), it was an incomplete statement of the law, confusing, and misleading.”

Irby v. Travis, 935 So. 2d 884 (Miss. 2006). · cites it 3× “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249 (1972). Accordingly, to be admissible, prior-accident-and certainly near-miss-testimony-must be carefully qualified.”

Kilhullen v. Kansas City S. Ry., 8 So. 3d 168 (Miss. 2009). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(3) (Rev.2000). See also Clark v.”

Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. Travis, 106 So. 3d 320 (Miss. 2012). · cites it 3× “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249 (1972). Sawyer v.”

Baker v. Canadian Nat'l/Illinois Cent. Ry. Co., 397 F. Supp. 2d 803 (S.D. Miss. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249 (setting forth duty of motorist to stop at crossing when train is approaching); Woods v.”

Clark v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 794 So. 2d 191 (Miss. 2001). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(4) places an absolute duty on a motorist approaching a crossing indicated by a crossbuck sign to slow to a speed reasonable for the location and be prepared to stop within the 15-50 foot zone if a train is present.”

Bowman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 931 So. 2d 644 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(3) (Supp.2005).”

Sawyer v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R. Co., 606 So. 2d 1069 (Miss. 1992). “Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249 (1972). Accordingly, to be admissible, prior-accident and certainly near-miss-testimony must be carefully qualified.”

Owens v. Int'l Paper Co., 528 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1976). “In the second, Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249 , which is said to require submission to the jury of all questions of negligence and proximate cause in crossing accidents where a motorist fails to stop, is advanced as preventing the directed verdict.”

Show all 25 citing cases →

— Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249(1) — 3 cases

Baker v. Canadian Nat'l/Illinois Cent. R.R., 536 F.3d 357 (5th Cir. 2008). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(1) (requiring a driver to stop at railroad tracks when locomotive emits signal within nine-hundred feet of crossing); Miss.”

Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. Travis, 106 So. 3d 320 (Miss. 2012). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249 (1972). Sawyer v.”

Woods v. Amtrak, 982 F. Supp. 409 (N.D. Miss. 1997).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249(1)(d) — 1 case

Richardson v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 923 So. 2d 1002 (Miss. 2006). “While Richardson's proposed instruction P-12 mirrored Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(1)(d), it was an incomplete statement of the law, confusing, and misleading.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249(3) — 5 cases

Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hawkins, 830 So. 2d 1162 (Miss. 2002). “Further, since Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249 , from which Instruction P-1 is taken, is written in the alternative, the jury could find for the Plaintiffs under either theory.”

Kilhullen v. Kansas City S. Ry., 8 So. 3d 168 (Miss. 2009). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(3) (Rev.2000). See also Clark v.”

Bowman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 931 So. 2d 644 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(3) (Supp.2005).”

Beville v. Burlington N. R.R., 960 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1992).

— Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249(4) — 5 cases

Bowman v. CSX Transp., Inc., 931 So. 2d 644 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249(3) (Supp.2005).”

Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R. v. Travis, 106 So. 3d 320 (Miss. 2012). “Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249 (1972). Sawyer v.”

— Miss. Code Ann. § 77-9-249(d) — 1 case

Alabama Great S. R. Co. v. Lee, 826 So. 2d 1232 (Miss. 2002). “AGS also argues that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that Pigford's violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 77-9-249 was negligence per se.”

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.