Delgado v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
763 F. Supp. 1509, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6585, 1991 WL 78411 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner or railroad company generally owes no duty to an unknown trespasser to prevent them from boarding a train or otherwise make its premises safe, even with general knowledge that trespassers frequently enter the property. A duty of reasonable care toward a trespasser for an activity conducted on the land arises only when the landowner has actual or constructive knowledge of the specific trespasser's presence.
Facts:
- Alfredo Jaime Delgado, an undocumented alien, intended to 'hitch a ride' on a freight train owned by Southern Pacific Transportation Company.
- On November 29, 1987, after hiding for approximately one hour, Delgado boarded a stopped freight train in or near Southern Pacific's five-mile-long Yuma railroad yard.
- Delgado intentionally concealed himself to avoid discovery while waiting for and boarding the train.
- Southern Pacific was aware that significant numbers of people, often undocumented aliens, frequently trespassed and boarded its trains in and near the Yuma yard.
- After the train began moving and had traveled for about fifteen minutes, Delgado lost his grip, fell from the train, and was severely injured.
- As a result of the fall, Delgado lost one foot and part of his other foot.
- Delgado did not have a ticket to ride the train and could not identify the specific car he boarded or the exact location where he boarded.
Procedural Posture:
- Alfredo Jaime Delgado filed a lawsuit against Southern Pacific Transportation Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging negligence.
- Defendant Southern Pacific filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to Delgado.
- Plaintiff Delgado filed a Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, arguing Southern Pacific's failure to prevent him from boarding constituted negligence per se.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a railroad company owe a duty of care to prevent a trespasser from boarding its train when the company has general knowledge that people frequently trespass and 'hitch rides,' but has no specific knowledge of the individual trespasser's presence?
Opinions:
Majority - McNamee, District Judge
No. A railroad company does not owe a duty of care to prevent a trespasser from boarding its train under these circumstances. Under Arizona law, following the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 333, a landowner is generally not liable for harm to trespassers caused by a failure to exercise reasonable care. The exceptions to this rule do not apply here. The 'constant trespassers in a limited area' exception (§ 334) fails because Delgado did not show intrusions on a specific, limited area, but rather that trespassers roamed at large over the five-mile yard. The 'known trespasser' exception (§ 336) is inapplicable because Southern Pacific had no actual or constructive knowledge of Delgado's specific presence, particularly since he actively concealed himself. Imposing a broad duty based on general knowledge of trespassing would unreasonably require the railroad to cease operations or take economically infeasible measures. Finally, the company was not negligent per se, as the relevant state regulation was intended to protect passengers from trespassers, not to protect trespassers themselves.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law rule limiting a landowner's duty to undiscovered trespassers, applying it strictly in the context of large-scale railroad operations. By narrowly interpreting the Restatement's exceptions, the court clarifies that a company's general awareness of a widespread trespassing problem does not create a blanket duty to prevent all such acts. This precedent protects businesses from potentially crippling liability for injuries sustained by individuals during their own illegal acts on the property. The ruling makes it exceptionally difficult for an unknown trespasser to succeed in a negligence claim without proving the landowner had knowledge of their specific presence in a position of peril.
