Sprenkel v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining that “the factors listed by [the Krentzes] are either irrelevant to the application of the Occupied Crossing Rule or insufficient to trigger the application of the exception”
• holding rain, fog and darkness did not constitute ultrahazardous conditions at the crossing
• stating that “the [occupied crossing] rule provides that a railroad whose train is actually on and moving over a crossing owes no duty to warn the approaching highway traveler; the mere presence of the train in the crossing in front of the driver is sufficient warning”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).