Answer with Explanation:
The negligence act would be used here and for a plaintiff to prove to win the suit following four factors must have to be proved which are:
- Duty of care
- Breach
- Cause
- Harm
Part 1. Duty of Care
The railroad company owed a duty of care to every person rail station and the way they had exercised this duty of care was in the form of red light that David Harris saw, which means they exercised reasonable duty of care to avoid the misshapen. This means the duty of care that David Harris owes to himself was not crossing the yellow line.
Part 2. Breach
In fact David Harris was the one to avoid the red light signal and was out of the yellow line. So the breach of duty of care was of David Harris not of the railroad company.
Part 3. Cause
The cause of the breach of duty of care by David Harris was negligence because neither was the railroad signals were allowing him nor he was saving somebody else's life.
Part 4. Harm
Yes, the negligence of David Harris resulted in his death which is the most harm a person can suffer.
Conclusion:
As only harm was satisfactory not the other 3 factors were in the favor of plaintiff, so the widow's argument is incorrect and David Harris was negligent not the railroad company. Hence railroad company owes nothing in compensation to the David Harris's widow.