389.990. Bell and whistle at crossings — penalty. — A bell shall be placed on each locomotive engine, and be rung at a distance of at least eighty rods from the place where the railroad shall cross any traveled public road or street, and be kept ringing until it shall have crossed such road or street, or a horn or whistle shall be attached to such engine and be sounded at least eighty rods from the place where the railroad shall cross any such road or street, except in cities, and be sounded at intervals until it shall have crossed such road or street, under a penalty of twenty dollars for every neglect of the provisions of this section, to be paid by the corporation owning the railroad, to be sued for by the prosecuting or circuit attorney of the proper circuit, within ten days after such penalty was incurred, one-half thereof to go to the informer and the other half to the county; and said corporation shall also be liable for all damages which any person may hereafter sustain at such crossing when such bell shall not be rung or such horn or whistle sounded as required by this section; provided, however, that nothing herein contained shall preclude the corporation sued from showing that the failure to ring such bell or sound such horn or whistle was not the cause of such injury.
Notes of Decisions
Griffin v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 965 S.W.2d 458 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 7× “2d at 612 (citing § 389.990 RSMo (1986)). 7 Section 389.990 provides that a railroad company shall “be liable for all damages which any person may hereafter sustain at such crossing when such bell shall not be rung or such horn or whistle sounded as required by this section;…”
Bryan v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 21 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (E.D. Mo. 1997).
· cites it 11× “Bryan of the approach of its train in violation of Mo. Rev.Stat. § 389.990, (1994); b. by operating its train at a speed in excess of that permitted by 49 C.”
Vandergriff v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 769 S.W.2d 99 (Mo. 1989).
· cites it 4× “The Court of Appeals’ opinion held that plaintiff was entitled to the same presumption with reference to flasher lights that is accorded by § 389.990 RSMo 1986, relating to auditory or bell warnings.”
Elfrink v. Burlington N. R.R., 845 S.W.2d 607 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “§ 389.990 RSMo (1986). Burlington concedes that several witnesses testified that they did not hear a whistle, but maintains that no witness specifically testified to not hearing a bell.”
Hackett Ex Rel. Hackett v. Wabash R.R., 271 S.W.2d 573 (Mo. 1954).
· cites it 4× “Although plaintiff had stated a claim in part based on the alleged failure of defendant Wabash to perform the statutory duty of sounding a whistle or bell, Section 389.990 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., no such submission was proffered by plaintiff, and the instruction (No.”
Chamberlain v. Thompson, 256 S.W.2d 779 (Mo. 1953).
· cites it 5× “Section 389.990 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. Defendant-appellant contends the trial court erred in overruling defendant's motions for a directed verdict.”
Koehler v. Burlington N., Inc., 573 S.W.2d 938 (Mo. Ct. App. 1978).
“Our statute (§ 389.990, supra), requiring a warning or the ringing of a bell, did not do away with the common-law [sic] duty of a railroad to signal the approach of its trains.”
Koester v. Wait, 364 S.W.3d 720 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “1998) (internal footnote omitted); see § 389.990, RSMo. 2000. “Failure to sound one or the other of the prescribed signals results in liability by the railroad for all damages proximately caused by its omission.”
Davenport v. Wabash R.R. Co., 435 S.W.2d 641 (Mo. 1968).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiff’s submission was: (1) that the crossing was an unusually dangerous and hazardous one which the Wabash had negligently failed to make reasonably safe for motorists traveling east; and, (2) that defendants had negligently failed to ring a bell or sound a horn or whistle…”
Hodge v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 461 F. Supp. 2d 1044 (E.D. Mo. 2006).
“, failure to properly sound the train horn/whistle to warn motorists of the approach of the train pursuant to § 389.990 R.S.Mo., and failure to slow, decelerate or stop the train to avoid a specific individual hazard.”
Caffey v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 292 S.W.2d 611 (Mo. Ct. App. 1956).
· cites it 3× “instruction told the' jury that it'was' defendant’s duty to either ring the bell or sound the whistle when the train was' at a distance of .”
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.