389.665. Right-of-way to be cleared of weeds and brush to prevent fires, violation, damages and costs — public grade crossings to be clear of vegetation and undergrowth. — 1. It shall be the duty of every corporation or person owning or operating any railroad or branch thereof in this state to keep the right-of-way reasonably clear of brush and high weeds, by cutting, burning, chemical spraying, plowing under, or other appropriate means for the purpose of preventing the spread of fire, and in case such corporation or person shall fail or neglect to do so, any person owning land adjoining such railroad is hereby authorized, after giving three days' notice, in writing, to such owner or operator of the railroad, by service upon any person authorized to receive service of legal process on behalf of the corporation within this state to cause such brush and high weeds upon the right-of-way occupied by the railroad company to be cut and removed, burned, plowed, or sprayed with chemical material for killing such brush and high weeds in front of and adjoining his land, and such landowner may maintain an action against the corporation or person so failing to perform this duty, in any court of competent jurisdiction, and shall be entitled to recover double the amount of all expenses and damages incurred and accruing thereby, together with costs.
2. It shall be the duty of every corporation or person owning or operating any railroad or branch thereof in this state to maintain the right-of-way at public grade crossings so that it will be reasonably clear of vegetation, undergrowth or other debris for a distance of two hundred fifty feet each way from the near edge of such crossings where such things would materially obscure approaching trains from the view of travelers on the highway.
Notes of Decisions
O'Bannon Ex Rel. O'Bannon v. Union Pac. R.R., 960 F. Supp. 1411 (W.D. Mo. 1997).
· cites it 8× “Preemption Under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 389.665(2) Furthermore, even if the vegetation was not on or immediately adjacent to the railbed, as indicated by the pleadings— and thus outside of the scope of 49 C.”
Hodge v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 461 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 2006).
“His complaint is grounded in Missouri state law claims: failure to provide adequate signalization warning motorists of oncoming trains; failure to clear vegetation and other visual obstructions from right-of-way so as to provide motorists adequate visibility of oncoming trains…”
Courtois v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (E.D. Mo. 2024).
· cites it 14× “Mo. Rev. Stat. § 389.665 (2). In moving for summary judgment, Union Pacific argues it cannot be held to have violated this statute, because it is undisputed that the North Oak Road crossing was not a “public grade crossing.”
Gillenwater v. Burlington North., Santa Fe Ry., 481 F. Supp. 2d 998 (E.D. Mo. 2007).
· cites it 2× “In seeking remand, plaintiffs allege that they bring four types of negligence claims against BNSF: 1) failure to provide adequate signalization warring motorists of oncoming trains; 2) failure to clear vegetation [3] and other visual obstructions from the right-of-way so as to…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 389.665(2) — 2 cases
O'Bannon Ex Rel. O'Bannon v. Union Pac. R.R., 960 F. Supp. 1411 (W.D. Mo. 1997).
“Preemption Under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 389.665(2) Furthermore, even if the vegetation was not on or immediately adjacent to the railbed, as indicated by the pleadings— and thus outside of the scope of 49 C.”
Courtois v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (E.D. Mo. 2024).
“Mo. Rev. Stat. § 389.665 (2). In moving for summary judgment, Union Pacific argues it cannot be held to have violated this statute, because it is undisputed that the North Oak Road crossing was not a “public grade crossing.”
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.