Kircher v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
195 P.2d 427, 1948 Cal. LEXIS 211, 32 Cal. 2d 176 (1948)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person who goes to a railway depot for the purpose of meeting an arriving passenger is a business visitor (invitee), to whom the railway company owes a duty of ordinary care to keep its premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Facts:
- Plaintiff, an aviation cadet, went to the defendant railway company's station after midnight to await the 2 a.m. arrival of two fellow cadets.
- Plaintiff intended to share a taxi with his friends from the station back to their nearby air base.
- The defendant's depot property included a brick platform for passengers and an adjacent asphalt area.
- After the train arrived, Plaintiff jogged northerly along the west side of the train, looking into the coach windows to find his friends.
- While jogging, Plaintiff's left foot went into a hole in the asphalt pavement, described as being two or three feet wide and several inches deep.
- The misstep caused Plaintiff to stumble forward a significant distance, strike his head against the side of a train coach, and lose consciousness.
- Plaintiff's left hand was subsequently run over and nearly severed by the train's wheels when the train began to move approximately 10 minutes later.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant railway company in a California trial court for damages for physical injuries.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him $60,000 in damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict.
- Defendant railway company appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
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 person who goes to a railway station to meet friends he expects to arrive on a train a business visitor (invitee) to whom the railway owes a duty of ordinary care to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Carter, J.
Yes. A person on railway premises to meet an arriving passenger is a business visitor, or invitee, to whom the railway owes a duty of maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. The weight of authority supports the rule that accommodating individuals who meet arriving or departing passengers is part of the business of a railway company. As an invitee, the plaintiff was entitled to assume the station platform was reasonably safe, and the question of his contributory negligence was for the jury. Although the plaintiff's account of the accident was extraordinary, it was not physically impossible or inherently improbable; therefore, the jury's acceptance of his testimony and its finding of fact will not be disturbed on appeal. The jury could reasonably infer that after the initial fall, the plaintiff, in a dazed or unconscious state, moved in such a way that his hand came to rest on the opposite rail.
Dissenting - Shenk, J.
No. The defendant should not be held liable because the plaintiff's version of how the accident happened is contrary to the laws of nature and inherently improbable. It is unbelievable that the plaintiff could stumble from a depression 13 feet away from the track, be pitched under the train, and have only his hand crushed on the easterly rail without his body being injured. The only reasonable inference is that the plaintiff was on the easterly side of the tracks where he had no right to be, tripped on a rail there, and fell, which would result in no liability for the defendant. Furthermore, the $60,000 damage award is so grossly disproportionate as to shock the sense of justice and suggest it was the result of passion and prejudice.
Dissenting - Traynor, J.
No. A reasonable jury could not find it more probable than not that the plaintiff's injury resulted from the defendant's negligence. Although the accident as described by the plaintiff is not outside the realm of possibility, his version involves such an extraordinary and improbable sequence of events that, coming from an interested and impeached witness, it does not warrant belief without corroboration. Therefore, the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the majority rule that individuals meeting passengers at a common carrier are classified as invitees, thereby owed a higher duty of care than mere licensees. It serves as a powerful illustration of appellate deference to a jury's findings of fact, establishing a very high bar for overturning a verdict on the grounds that the evidence was 'inherently improbable.' The decision emphasizes that as long as a plaintiff's account is not physically impossible, its credibility is a matter for the jury to determine, even if the events described are highly unusual or 'extraordinary.'
