Menard v. CSX Transportation Inc.
Not available (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Massachusetts law, a landowner owes a duty to a trespasser only to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, unless the landowner has actual knowledge that the trespasser is in a position of peril, which then creates a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury.
Facts:
- Mark Menard lived near a rail freight yard owned and operated by CSX Transportation, Inc. ('CSX').
- Menard, along with other local residents, regularly walked across the active rail yard as a shortcut.
- On July 30, 2008, while crossing the yard, several CSX employees saw Menard enter and made eye contact with him, but none warned him to leave.
- A conductor guiding a slow-moving train waved his arm, which Menard interpreted as a direction to move to his right.
- While continuing across the yard, Menard's right foot was pinned and crushed by an activated rail switch.
- After freeing himself from the switch, Menard staggered approximately 30 feet in great pain.
- He was then struck by a different oncoming train, resulting in the severance of his left leg, severe damage to his left arm, and the eventual amputation of his right foot.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Menard and his mother sued CSX Transportation, Inc. in a Massachusetts state trial court.
- CSX, the defendant, removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts based on diversity jurisdiction.
- CSX filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
- Menard, the plaintiff, responded by moving to amend his complaint to add more factual detail.
- The U.S. District Court denied Menard's motion to amend as futile and granted CSX's motion to dismiss the complaint.
- Menard, as the appellant, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; CSX is the appellee.
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 complaint that alleges, based only on 'information and belief' and without specific supporting facts, that a landowner's employees knew a trespasser was in a specific position of peril, satisfy the plausibility pleading standard of Twombly and Iqbal?
Opinions:
Majority - Boudin, Circuit Judge.
No. A complaint alleging on 'information and belief' that a landowner knew a trespasser was in peril is insufficient without supporting factual allegations to make the claim plausible. However, a court has discretion to allow limited discovery when a plausible claim may be indicated and the necessary information is likely within the defendant's exclusive control. Under Massachusetts law, a landowner's duty to an adult trespasser is limited to refraining from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. An exception imposes a duty of reasonable care only if the landowner has actual knowledge that the trespasser is in a specific 'position of peril.' Menard's mere presence in a generally dangerous rail yard did not constitute a 'position of peril' that would trigger this heightened duty. His allegation that CSX employees knew of his specific peril after the switch injury but before the train collision was a conclusory statement based on 'information and belief,' which fails to meet the pleading standards of Twombly and Iqbal. Nevertheless, given Menard's severe injuries and the likelihood that CSX has exclusive control over evidence of what its employees witnessed, the court concluded that outright dismissal was premature. Therefore, the case was remanded to allow the district court to determine whether limited discovery is warranted to uncover facts supporting the allegation of peril.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the judicial application of the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard in cases involving information asymmetry, where a defendant exclusively possesses key facts. Rather than strictly dismissing a complaint for lacking specific factual allegations, the court carves out a middle ground. It empowers district courts to use their discretion to permit narrow, targeted discovery when a plaintiff presents a potentially plausible claim but cannot access the evidence needed to substantiate it. This approach attempts to balance the goals of filtering out baseless lawsuits with ensuring that potentially meritorious claims are not unjustly dismissed, especially when the plaintiff's inability to plead with specificity is due to circumstances like severe injury and the defendant's control of information.
Unlock the full brief for Menard v. CSX Transportation Inc.