LeRoy Fibre Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St, Paul Railway Co.
232 U.S. 340 (1914)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner is not contributorily negligent for making a lawful use of their own property, and their right to recover for damages caused by another's negligence is not defeated because they placed property in a location where it might be endangered by that negligence.
Facts:
- A property owner owned land adjacent to a railroad's right-of-way.
- The owner placed inflammable stacks of flax straw on their own property near the railroad tracks.
- A passing train, operated by the railroad, emitted large quantities of sparks and 'live cinders' due to negligent operation.
- The sparks and cinders were the immediate cause of a fire that destroyed the owner's flax straw.
Procedural Posture:
- The property owner sued the railroad company in a federal trial court to recover damages for the destruction of the flax straw.
- The case was appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals, being uncertain of the correct legal rule regarding contributory negligence in this context, certified three questions of law to the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 property owner's lawful act of placing inflammable property on their own land near a railroad's right-of-way constitute evidence of contributory negligence that may be submitted to a jury when the property is destroyed by the railroad's negligent operation?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice McKenna
The majority held that a property owner's lawful use of their land does not constitute contributory negligence. A person is entitled to use their property and assume that others will obey the law and not act negligently. Subjecting a property owner's rights to the wrongful acts of another is a legal anomaly that would require the owner to anticipate and guard against another's wrongs. The doctrine of contributory negligence is entirely out of place in such a situation. Citing precedents like Grand Trunk Railroad Company v. Richardson, the court affirmed the principle that one does not lose the right to compensation for a loss caused by another's negligence simply because of the location of their property. The court answered the first two questions in the negative and the third in the affirmative.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Holmes
Justice Holmes partially concurred with the majority's result but disagreed with its absolute approach. While agreeing that people are generally entitled to assume their neighbors will not be negligent, he argued this rule should not be absolute. He believed that if a person placed property so near a railroad that it was obviously likely to be set on fire even by a well-managed train, they should not be able to recover. The distance between the property and the railroad tracks is a critical fact. Holmes stated that 'although of course he had a right to put his flax where he liked upon his own land, the liability of the railroad for a fire was absolutely conditioned upon the stacks being at a reasonably safe distance from the train.' He was not prepared to answer the first question 'No' without considering the specific distance involved.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strong protection for property rights by rejecting the application of contributory negligence when a landowner makes a lawful use of their land. It places the burden of care squarely on the party engaged in a potentially dangerous activity (the railroad) rather than requiring adjacent landowners to anticipate and mitigate risks from potential negligence. This precedent limits a common defense for tortfeasors, clarifying that a victim's mere exposure to a risk created by another does not diminish their right to recovery. However, Justice Holmes' concurrence introduces a 'reasonableness' standard based on proximity that suggests the majority's bright-line rule might be challenged in future cases with more extreme facts.
