Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad
39 Utah 617 (1911)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Where evidence points with equal force to two potential causes of an injury, one for which the defendant is liable and one for which the defendant is not, the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proof. Additionally, a railroad's statutory exemption from fencing its tracks for station grounds only applies to the area reasonably necessary for transacting business with the public.
Facts:
- A cattle owner (Respondent) was pasturing her cow on private land through which the San Pedro, L.A. & S.L.R. Co. (Appellant) operated its railroad.
- The railroad's right-of-way fence was in disrepair at a point approximately one mile from where one of the Respondent's cows was struck and killed by a train.
- In the immediate vicinity of where the cow was killed, two gates providing access to the right-of-way were frequently left open, a condition for which the railroad was not responsible.
- A Utah statute stipulated that if a landowner fails to keep such gates closed and an animal is killed as a result, the owner cannot recover damages.
- Separately, several other of the Respondent's cattle were killed at a location called Niter, where the railroad had removed a 3,600-foot section of fence.
- The railroad claimed this unfenced area was necessary for station grounds, exempting it from fencing requirements.
- Niter had minimal infrastructure (a gravel platform and a small shelter) and handled very little freight, averaging less than one car per month.
- A large portion of the unfenced ground at Niter was physically unsuitable for loading or unloading freight due to a 'borrow pit'.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant railroad company in a state trial court to recover the value of her cattle killed by its trains, alleging four causes of action.
- A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff on all four causes of action.
- The defendant railroad company, as appellant, appealed the judgment entered on the verdict to the state's highest 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 plaintiff meet their burden of proof when the evidence suggests two equally plausible ways their animal could have entered a railroad's right-of-way, one creating liability for the railroad and the other not?
Opinions:
Majority - McCarty, J.
No. When the undisputed evidence from which an essential fact is sought to be inferred points with equal force to two things, one which renders the defendant liable and the other not, the plaintiff must fail. Regarding the first cow, the inference that it entered the right-of-way through the nearby open gate (for which the railroad was not liable) is at least as strong as the inference that it entered through the broken fence a mile away. Because the plaintiff failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the railroad's negligence was the cause, she cannot recover for that loss. However, regarding the other cattle, the jury correctly found that the railroad had left far more ground unfenced at Niter than was reasonably necessary for its station operations, given the minimal traffic and unusable terrain. Therefore, the railroad was not exempt from its duty to fence that area, and the judgment for those animals is affirmed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that a plaintiff in a negligence action bears the burden of proving causation by a preponderance of the evidence, establishing the 'equal inference rule.' It prevents recovery based on pure speculation when a non-negligent cause is just as likely as a negligent one. The ruling also significantly limits the 'station grounds' exception to railroad fencing statutes, transforming it from a categorical designation by the railroad into a functional, fact-based inquiry into what is reasonably necessary for public convenience and business operations. This prevents railroads from creating excessively large, unfenced hazardous areas under the mere pretext of station needs.
