Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions
- Prompter Pro

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Advanced Search | Notes Search

Start My FREE 3-DAY Trial

Log In

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in content

Post Type Selectors

Law Study Aids
Courses
- 1L Prep Course
Solutions
- Professors and Institutions
- Prompter Pro

Start My FREE 3-DAY Trial

Log In Sign up

Remember Me

Forgot Password?

Forgot Password?

Forgotten Password

Cancel

SmartBrief enables case brief popups that define Key Terms, Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises used in this case.

SmartBrief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Sections to print

Brief Prologue
Case Brief
Brief Epilogue
Notes

To print, please Start a Free Trial or Log in.

Confirm favorite deletion?

Cancel Yes, Delete

Torts Keyed to Franklin

View this case in different Casebooks

Torts Keyed to Epstein Torts Keyed to Prosser Torts Keyed to Christie Torts Keyed to Duncan

Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.

Citation:

Supreme Court of the United States, 1934. 292 U.S. 98, 54S. Ct. 580, 78 L.Ed. 1149.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Facts

The Plaintiff(Pokora) was driving his truck across four railroad tracks owned by the defendant(Wabash Railway Co.). There were two switch tracks and two main tracks. There were box cars coming on the switch track and he moved past that listened for another train heard nothing and proceeded across the main track. While crossing the main track he was hit by a train going north. Based on the facts there is no way Pokora knew a train was coming on the main track.

Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*

Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.

*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue

The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
Topic:
Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
Parties:
Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
Procedural Posture & History:
Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.:
A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises:
Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
Brief Facts:
A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
Rule of Law:
Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
Facts:
What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case.
Issue(s):
Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
Holding:
Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
Concurring / Dissenting Opinions:
Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
Reasoning and Analysis:
Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
Policy:
Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
Court Direction:
Shares where the Court went from here for this case.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Case Quiz

Retake Attempts

Question 1 of 3

Results

0 of 3 Questions answered correctly.

Results

Quiz complete. Results are being recorded.

Q.1 - How does Justice Cardozo’s treatment of Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. Goodman most precisely reconfigure the judge-jury boundary in contributory negligence doctrine, as reflected in the script?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) It constitutionalizes jury primacy, making judicial direction of verdicts on contributory negligence categorically impermissible.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the script does not impose an absolute constitutional bar on directed verdicts.

(B) It rejects universalizing a specific precaution into law where situational risk tradeoffs vary, converting Goodman’s per se logic into a fact-sensitive reasonableness inquiry for the jury.

Correct! This is correct because the script frames Cardozo as resisting a categorical “exit-and-look” rule when circumstances vary and the precaution’s safety and utility are contestable. That move reallocates the negligence determination back to the jury when reasonable minds can differ on prudence under dangerous conditions.

(C) It adopts Goodman’s rule but limits it to crossings with more than two tracks, preserving a bright-line standard while narrowing its domain.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the critique targets rule universalization, not a track-count limitation.

(D) It replaces Goodman with a rebuttable presumption of contributory negligence that can be overcome only by expert testimony on railroad safety practices.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the script contains no expert-dependent presumption framework.

Q.2 - Assume contributory negligence is a complete bar and a directed verdict is proper only when no reasonable jury could find for the plaintiff. Under the script’s reasoning, which ground most precisely explains why the District Court’s directed verdict was erroneous?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) The railroad’s status as a common carrier makes plaintiff precaution legally irrelevant as a matter of duty allocation.

Incorrect. This is wrong because plaintiff conduct remains relevant even if the defendant operates as a common carrier.

(B) The presence of obstructing boxcars establishes negligence per se by the railroad, eliminating contributory negligence as a doctrine.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the script does not treat boxcar obstruction as negligence per se eliminating contributory negligence.

(C) The stop-and-listen precaution is legally sufficient whenever the plaintiff cannot see, so contributory negligence can never be found in obstructed-view cases.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the script rejects any universal rule that a single precaution is always legally sufficient.

(D) Competing inferences existed about what practical prudence required under obstructed conditions, so fixing contributory negligence as law improperly replaced jury evaluation with a rigid judicial rule.

Correct! D is correct because the script emphasizes that reasonableness under obstructed conditions is fact-intensive and permits multiple plausible judgments about required precautions. A directed verdict on contributory negligence improperly collapses that evaluative choice into a rigid legal rule, displacing the jury’s function.

Q.3 - Which option best states the substantive content of the Court’s “contextual reasonableness” approach, beyond a mere preference for jury decision making?

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

(A) Reasonable care at an obstructed crossing depends on practical safety tradeoffs, including whether exiting would meaningfully improve information or instead increase danger, so no single mandatory precaution fits all cases.

Correct! This is correct because the script’s standard turns on context and practical judgment, including whether the proposed precaution is effective and safe in the real-world setting. That framing explains why rigid mandates can misstate ordinary prudence and why juries assess reasonableness under specific circumstances.

(B) Reasonable care depends on the plaintiff’s subjective good-faith belief after listening, so liability turns on sincerity rather than objective risk.

Incorrect. This is wrong because the script uses an objective reasonableness standard, not subjective belief.

(C) Reasonable care requires the most risk-averse precaution available, even if it introduces secondary risks, because tort law prioritizes maximal safety.

Incorrect. This is wrong because tort law generally does not require maximal risk aversion irrespective of secondary hazards.

(D) Reasonable care is conclusively determined by railroad industry custom regarding driver behavior at crossings, making deviation dispositive.

Incorrect. This is wrong because custom may be evidence but is not dispositive under the script’s approach.

MarginBrief^™ Case overview for optimal recall

A.I Enhanced Margin Brief to quickly recall case brief

Generating...

Facts:

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Quickly review the Facts of this case including its key ideas for optimal understanding and recall.

Issue:

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Utilize our powerful A.I. tools to easily capture and understand the Issue in this case.

Rule:

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Easily understand the Rule in this case so you have a complete and thorough appreciation for overall case concepts completely tying together what occurred, the court’s questions and the case outcome.

Start Your Free Trial or Log in.

Topic Resources

^™ CaseCast

Melissa A. Hale

ProfessorMelissa A. Hale

CaseCast™ "What you need to know"

CaseCast™ – "What you need to know"

Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.

To continue listening to this CaseCast™ please Subscribe

Topic Videos

Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.

2m 18s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.

13m 43s

See complete Lesson, Quizzes and More

Topic Outline

Negligence

Topic Refresher Course

Negligence: Joint Tortfeasors, Identification and Contribution

Status:

Your Law School
Success Begins Here

Case Briefs - the Socratic Savior! – Best in class and Largest Library of complete I.R.A.C. / C.R.E.A.C. Law School case briefs. Includes:
- SmartBriefs® - Enhanced case briefs for optimal clarity
- New Case Videos - Explained and Summarized for optimal case understanding
- CaseCast® - Professor overviews of "What you need to know"
- New MarginBrief® - A.I. - Powered for faster, more efficient case recall
Lessons - Professor delivered video for topic reinforcement
Outlines - Professor written - downloadable, amendable and includes test-taking tips and tools
New Case Quiz - Reinforce case principles, instantly scored
Refresher Courses - Quick course reviews with interactive exercises
Quizzes and Exams - over 5,000 Multiple Choice and Essay questions all Professor curated and answered
New My Reviewer™ - Instantly receive a Score, Critique and Feedback on your legal writing
Exam Prep Workshops - Delivered by Professors on how to disect, organize and answer law school exam questions
and so much more ...

Start your FREE Trial

Notepad Click anywhere in notepad to add a note

Pokora v. Wabash Railway Co.