1956 — Dec 16, Car (inebriated driver), hits train at Crossing, southwest Phoenix, AZ– 12
–12 Alires v. Southern Pacific Company, Supreme Court of Arizona, 2-20-1963.
–12 National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1970 Edition. 1970. p. 63.
–12 Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “Christmas Season…Death…State Highways.” 12-21-1959.
–12 Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “No Hope Seen To Solve Crash.” 12-21-1956, p. 1.
–12 Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “Police Search…Cause…Wreck…Killed 12.” 12-18-1956, 1
–12 Arizona Republic, Phoenix. “Crash Kills 16 Here.” 6-9-1959, p. 3.
–12 Daily Journal, Commerce TX. “Southern Pacific Wins $520,000 Car Crash Suit.” 5-9-1958
–12 Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “12 Killed in Car-Train Accident. Phoenix Crash…” 12-17-1956, 1.
–12 Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “$520,000 Damage Suit Filed vs. SP by Cecilia Alires.” 7-25-1957, 1
–12 Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “Mass Funeral Service Held for Alires Family.” 12-23-1956, p. 1.
Narrative Information
Alires v. Southern Pacific: “This action is by Cecilia B. Alires as administratrix of the estates of nine deceased relatives and guardian of the estate of Crucita Alires, a minor. She appeals to this Court from a judgment entered upon jury verdicts in favor of the Southern Pacific Company, a Delaware corporation, and Carl W. De Priest, engineer and Belton E. Hodges, fireman, employees of defendant company.
“On December 16th, 1956, at approximately 11:50 P.M. a 1937 Chevrolet automobile driven by one John Massey collided with the engine of the Southern Pacific Company’s Golden State passenger train at the crossing of defendant’s tracks and Thirty-fifth Avenue, a through boulevard in the City of Phoenix. Twelve of the thirteen occupants of the automobile were killed, the only survivor being Crucita Alires, an 18 months old child.
“Plaintiff complained that the individual defendants operated the Golden State in a wanton, reckless and negligent manner and that defendant Southern Pacific Company wantonly, recklessly and negligently failed to provide adequate protection or warning for members of the public traveling on Thirty-fifth Avenue. Defendants denied negligence and affirmatively alleged that the negligence of the driver and adult passengers in the automobile either caused or contributed to the collision.
“The crossing at which the accident occurred was within the incorporated limits of the City of Phoenix, and was heavily traveled, one car on the average crossing every 15 seconds. The Reynolds Aluminum Plant bordered both the Southern Pacific Tracks and Thirty-fifth Avenue and employed approximately 1,500 persons. Around midnight, during change of shift, traffic was particularly heavy. The train at its previous stop, Yuma, Arizona, was about one hour and forty minutes late. It was being operated at a speed of 79 miles an hour at the crossing. The Thirty-fifth Avenue Crossing was indicated by the customary wooden cross-arm and a standard highway sign set 135 feet north of the crossing.
“The Massey automobile was observed being driven recklessly prior to the accident. It struck the train on the left side at the rear of the first engine. Although the car was “smashed to pieces and nearly disintegrated,” the train personnel were unaware of the accident and the train continued to the Union Station in downtown Phoenix. During the course of the evening before the accident Massey and the male members of the Alires family were observed drinking beer. Blood taken from the Massey body analyzed an alcoholic content of .23 per cent.[1] There were no eye witnesses to the accident and the evidence does not afford any certain clue as to why the Massey vehicle was traveling south on Thirty-fifth Avenue at the Southern Pacific Crossing at the time of the collision.
“Plaintiff presents many assignments of error some of which raise matters so clearly and manifestly prejudicial as to require that a new trial be granted.
“Defendants’ requested instruction #4 is palpably erroneous and prejudicial. By statute:
“A. No person shall drive a vehicle when it is so loaded, or when there are in the front seat such number of persons, exceeding three, as to obstruct the view of the driver to the front or sides of the vehicle or as to interfere with the driver’s control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle.
“B. No passenger in a vehicle shall ride in such position as to interfere with the driver’s view ahead or to the sides, or to interfere with his control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle.” A.R.S. § 28-893.
“Subsection A of the statute imposes a duty on the operator of a motor vehicle in three respects: (1) Not to drive when his vehicle is so loaded as to obstruct his view; (2) Not to drive when his vehicle is so loaded as to interfere with his control; (3) Not to drive when there are more than three people in the front seat and thereby his view is obstructed or his control interfered with. A driver is not prohibited from driving with three or more persons in the front seat if neither his view is obstructed nor his control interfered with.
“Subsection B imposes a duty on a passenger not to obstruct the driver’s view or interfere with his control. It does not forbid a passenger riding if the driver’s view is obstructed or his control interfered with by another person. Notwithstanding, the lower court after stating the contents of the statute instructed the jury in this manner:
…Therefore, if you find that the automobile in this case was driven when it was so loaded, or when the front seat had such a number of persons exceeding three, that the view of the driver was obstructed to the front or the sides of the automobile, or was so loaded as to interfere with the driver’s control over the driving mechanism of the automobile, I instruct you that all the adults in the automobile are negligent as a matter of law, and if you find that such negligence was one of the factors which contributed to bring about the collision, there can be no recovery on account of the deaths of said adults…
“….there were eight adults and five minors, three of whom were small children riding as passengers in the Massey automobile. There was no evidence whatsoever to indicate where in the automobile the various passengers were riding. The instruction permitted the jury to speculate; (1) as to whether the driver’s view was in fact obstructed to the front or sides and, (2) whether the automobile was so loaded as to interfere with the driver’s control and, (3) whether all or any one of the passengers interfered with his control or vision. Under the circumstances of this case where no adult passenger survived and consequently there is no explanation as to how or why the accident happened, the instruction did more than permit, it invited, speculation….
“We are also of the opinion that certain relevant testimony was erroneously and prejudicially excluded. Prior to the trial, and at the inquest, the defendant Hodges, fireman, testified: “…that is a particular bad crossing there, all those aluminum employees are always crossing on that crossing, and we always watch that crossing.” The trial court excluded from the cross-examination of Hodges, the fireman, any testimony as to whether he considered the Thirty-fifth Avenue Crossing a particularly bad crossing….
“In this case there was no direct evidence that there were more than three persons occupying the front seat of the death vehicle. It is undisputed, however, that thirteen persons were crowded into the car. The majority say that a conclusion by the jury that the statute was violated would be unpermitted speculation. This ignores the rule in this state that an inference can be based upon an inference, in a civil case, if the first inference is established to the exclusion of every other reasonable theory, New York Life Ins. Co. v. McNeely, 52 Ariz. 181, 79 P.2d 948 (1938); Buzard v. Griffin, 89 Ariz. 42, 358 P.2d 155 (1961). Here the given fact is that thirteen people occupied the car, the first inference that more than three occupied the front seat, and the second inference, based upon the first, that thereby the driver’s view was obstructed or his control was interfered with. If the first inference excludes every other reasonable theory, this chain of inference is permitted.
“The only alternative theory to the inference that more than three persons occupied the front seat is that ten persons were piled three deep in the rear passenger compartment of a small 1937 model sedan, while three persons lounged in the front seat. I find this an unreasonable theory, especially in view of the facts that several of the adults had been drinking, that the vehicle ran through two stoplights just prior to the collision with the train, and that no effort was made to stop for the train although its oscillating headlight could be seen for several hundred yards before it reached the crossing. The presumption that a person obeyed the law vanishes in the face of compelling circumstantial evidence that the law is being violated. Cf. Helton v. Industrial Commission, 85 Ariz. 276, 336 P.2d 852 (1959). The jury could properly find, from the facts appearing in this record, that the driver of the death vehicle was violating A.R.S. § 28-893.”
(Alires v. Southern Pacific Company (No. 6763). Supreme Court of Arizona, 2-20-1963.)
Newspapers
Dec 17: “Phoenix (UP) — Twelve parsons were killed and a baby girl critically injured early today when their car rammed into the Chicago bound Southern Pacific Golden State Limited passenger train.
“Police this morning located the 12th body, that of a three-year-old boy, hidden in woods along the railroad tracks. All of the victims were badly mangled and some torn into pieces by the force of the collision.
“No passenger on the train was injured, and a Southern Pacific spokesman said the train’s engineer was not aware of the accident until a bumper from the car fell of the engine unit as the train pulled into Union Station here, about three miles from the wreck scene.
“The baby was found beneath some of the tangled wreckage, and was taken to Maricopa County
Hospital for surgery and treatment of head and internal injuries. Her condition was listed as critical….Hospitalized and “holding her own” according to attendants, was the baby girl, about 18 months to two years of age, who required surgery for head injuries.
“Officers believe Massery may have been driving the car, which carried California license plates.
A check with California authorities showed the car had been registered to Donal Haga of Sacramento. However, Mrs. Haga said in Sacramento that her husband had sold the car to a man named John Massery of Phoenix.
“”It was terrible,” a police officer at the scene said. “The bodies were a mess and bit of wreckage
was everywhere. The only identification we could find left in one piece was a torn California license plate.”
“Officers said the crossing only has a standard sign warning and no signals. The accident occurred at 2:10 a.m. EST and within minutes hundreds of spectators jammed the area. Police combined with sheriff’s deputies held the crew back while the bodies were removed.” (Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “12 Killed in Car-Train Accident. Phoenix Crash…” 12-17-1956, p. 1.)
Dec 18: “Phoenix (AP) – Police sought Tuesday to trace events leading up to a train-automobile collision which killed 12 of the car’s 13 occupants. The big question was: Why did so many persons crowd into one car? Sheriff’s deputies were told that the group was taking one of the victims to a hospital just a mile from the level crossing which was the scene of the tragedy early Monday morning. Friends said Lee Roy Johnston 36, had suffered a side injury requiring treatment. But it remained unanswered why seven other adults and five children were escorting Johnston. An 18 month-old girl, Crucita is the only survivor. She is reported in critical condition with a skull injury. Nine other members of the Alires family were killed.
“Coroner Al J. Flood has scheduled an inquest into the deaths for Wednesday. The National Safety Council said the car’s collision with the Southern Pacific’s Golden State Limited was the worst single car-train accident in the nation’s history.
“The crossing, marked only by wooden railroad crossing signs, is on the outskirts of southwest Phoenix, an industrial area ending in desert, an untended cotton field and a cemetery.
“The City Council, in emergency session Monday night, directed the city attorney to petition the Arizona Corporation Commission to declare a long list of rail crossings dangerous and in need of flashing light signals.
“Police said witnesses estimated the train and the car were traveling at speeds between 70 and 80 mph Police said the car body was flattened like a tin can trampled on by a horse.” The top of the car was sheared off from the wind shield up.
“Remains were scattered over a 200-foot long gulley between the railroad tracks and the nearby cemetery. One body had been hurled from the point of the impact over a hedge and into the cemetery, about 100 feet away. Patrolman Forrest Kurth said ‘I’ve seen airplanes come down at full speed and hit the ground, but I never saw bodies turn up like that’.” (Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “Police Search for Cause of Wreck Which Killed 12.” 12-18-1956, p. 1.)
Dec 21: “Phoenix (AP) – Chances of any more official information on the train-car wreck that killed 12 persons in Phoenix Monday appear slim. Phoenix authorities regard the case as closed, at least for the present. The verdict of a coroner’s jury did little to add to the meager estimates of now the crash occurred: “Death as the result of an automobile striking a train.” was the jury’s epitaph for the ill-fated 12. The jurors also reported Thursday that they were unable to determine who was driving the car.” (Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “No Hope Seen To Solve Crash.” 12-21-1956, p. 1.)
Dec 23: “Phoenix, Ariz. – (AP) — A mass funeral service for nine members of a single family killed in the collision of a car and train here was held Saturday. Twelve persons in all were fatally injured in the worst accident of its kind in history….Members of the Alires family killed were
Juan, Sr., 59;
Juan, Jr. 21;
Victor, 29;
Sofie, 28;
Clara, 21;
Steve, 11;
David, 7;
Robert 3, and
Michael, nine months.”
(Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “Mass Funeral Service Held for Alires Family.” 12-23-1956, p. 1.)
July 25, 1957: “Phoenix (UP) — A $520,000 damage suit was on filed in Maricopa superior court today against Southern Pacific Railroad, resulting from a train-car collision that killed 12 persons here last Dec. 16. The suit was filed by Cecilia B. Alires, mother of two of the victims and a relative of seven of the others. Also named defendant were Carl W. DePriest, engineer and Belton E. Hodges, fireman.
“Nine members of the Alires family died in the wreck when the 1937 sedan crashed into the speeding Golden State Limited at an intersection west of Phoenix. Three other persons riding in the car also were killed. Crucita Alires, now 20 months old, was the only survivor of the early morning tragedy.” (Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “$520,000 Damage Suit Filed vs. SP by Cecilia Alires.” 7-25-1957, p. 1.)
May 9, 1958: “Phoenix, Ariz. (AP) – A Maricopa county superior court jury decided in favor of the Southern Pacific Railroad, company here last night in a $520,000 damage suit stemming from the nation’s worst car-train collision. The suit was filed by Cecilia Alires, administrator of the estates of nine of the 12 persons killed when a car collided with the Southern Pacific’s Golden State Limited Dec. 16, 1956, at a southwest Phoenix crossing….
“The verdict was 9-3 for the railroad, all that, is needed in a civil case. After this verdict was announced, Elias Romley, chief counsel for the plaintiff, asked the judge to set aside the decision, claiming pressure was exerted, against one of the jurors. Judge R. C. Stanford denied the motion.” (Daily Journal, Commerce, TX. “Southern Pacific Wins $520,000 Car Crash Suit.” 5-9-1958, p1.)
Dec 21, 1959: “….About midnight of Dec. 16, 1956, a creaky old sedan jammed with 13 persons struck the Southern Pacific’s Golden State Limited at the 35th Avenue crossing in southwest Phoenix. Twelve were killed and the only survivor, an 18-month-old baby, lingered near death for days. A blood test by the county medical examiner showed the driver, Johnny Massey, 36, of Phoenix, had a blood-alcohol level of .230, well above the .150 considered indicative of intoxication.” (Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “Christmas Season…Death…State Highways.” 12-21-1959, p. 2.)
Sources
Alires v. Southern Pacific Company (No. 6763). Supreme Court of Arizona, 2-20-1963. Accessed 12-13-2013 at: http://www.leagle.com/decision/196319093Ariz97_1176
Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “Christmas Season a Favorite for Death on State Highways.” 12-21-1959, 2. At: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/FullPagePdfViewer.aspx?img=53701457
Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “No Hope Seen To Solve Crash.” 12-21-1956, p. 1. Accessed at: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/FullPagePdfViewer.aspx?img=58160273
Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff. “Police Search for Cause of Wreck Which Killed 12.” 12-18-1956, 1. Accessed at: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/FullPagePdfViewer.aspx?img=58160254
Arizona Republic, Phoenix. “Crash Kills 16 Here.” 6-9-1959, p. 3. Accessed at: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/FullPagePdfViewer.aspx?img=126549781
Daily Journal, Commerce, TX. “Southern Pacific Wins $520,000 Car Crash Suit.” 5-9-1958, 1. Accessed at: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/SiteMap/FreePdfPreview.aspx?img=10167841
National Safety Council. “Greatest Number of Deaths in a Single Motor-Vehicle Accident.” Accident Facts 1970 Edition. Chicago, IL: NSC, 1970. p. 63.
Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “12 Killed in Car-Train Accident. Phoenix Crash…” 12-17-1956, 1. Accessed at: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/FullPagePdfViewer.aspx?img=54303662
Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “$520,000 Damage Suit Filed vs. SP by Cecilia Alires.” 7-25-1957, p. 1. Accessed at: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/FullPagePdfViewer.aspx?img=54294545
Yuma Daily Sun, AZ. “Mass Funeral Service Held for Alires Family.” 12-23-1956, p. 1. Accessed at: http://www.newspaperarchive.com/FullPagePdfViewer.aspx?img=54303702
[1] 0.15 per cent alcoholic content of blood is presumptively intoxicating. A.R.S. § 28-692.