Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Krayenbuhl
91 N.W. 880, 65 Neb. 889, 59 L.R.A. 920 (1902)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect young children from a dangerous condition on the property if the owner knows or should know that children are likely to trespass and be injured by the condition, and the burden of eliminating the danger is slight compared to the risk to children.
Facts:
- The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company (the railroad) maintained an unlocked and unguarded turntable on its property in the village of Palmer.
- A commonly used public path passed within 70 feet of the turntable, and there was no fence separating them.
- Four-year-old Leo Krayenbuhl lived with his family on the railroad's right of way, approximately 1,000 feet from the turntable.
- The railroad was aware that children from the neighborhood frequently played on and around the turntable.
- The railroad had a rule requiring the turntable to be locked when not in use, but this rule was often disregarded, and the lock mechanism itself was defective.
- On October 20, 1895, Leo Krayenbuhl and other children began playing on the turntable, setting it in motion.
- While the turntable was moving, Krayenbuhl's foot was caught between the rails and severed at the ankle.
Procedural Posture:
- Leo Krayenbuhl, by his next friend, filed a lawsuit against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company in a Nebraska district court (trial court) seeking damages for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Krayenbuhl.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff.
- The defendant railroad company appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Nebraska.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a railroad company liable for negligence when it fails to take reasonable precautions to secure a turntable, resulting in injury to a young child, when the company knew that children frequented the area and played on the unlocked and unguarded equipment?
Opinions:
Majority - Albert, C.
Yes, a railroad company is liable for negligence under these circumstances. The court affirms the 'turntable doctrine,' which holds that a landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to trespassing children when a dangerous condition on the property poses a foreseeable risk. The court rejected the traditional, rigid rule that landowners owe no duty to trespassers, arguing that an exception must be made for children of tender years who cannot appreciate the danger. The court's reasoning rests on a balancing test: the social utility of the unrestricted use of property must be weighed against the likelihood of injury to children and the relative burden of taking precautions. In this case, the utility of an unlocked turntable is minimal compared to the significant risk of serious injury to children, and the burden of securing it with a functional lock is slight. Therefore, the public good demands that the railroad take such a reasonable precaution. Although the court upheld this legal principle, it reversed the lower court's judgment and ordered a new trial due to erroneous jury instructions that improperly invaded the province of the jury by defining certain facts as negligence per se and incorrectly instructed on the measure of damages.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark application of the 'attractive nuisance' or 'turntable doctrine,' which carves out a significant exception to the traditional common law rule regarding landowner liability to trespassers. The decision moves away from classifying entrants based on status (trespasser, licensee, invitee) and toward a modern, flexible standard of reasonable care based on foreseeability. By establishing a balancing test that weighs the utility of the dangerous condition against the burden of preventing harm, the court provides a framework that profoundly influenced modern tort law, particularly the principles later codified in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339. This case signals a shift in legal policy, prioritizing the protection of children over the absolute and unrestricted use of private property when the risk is high and the preventative burden is low.
Unlock the full brief for Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Krayenbuhl