Facts of the Case: The plaintiff was walking on the defendant’s railway track when his foot became stuck between 2 portions of the track.
Unable to dislodge the foot before the approaching train could stop, the defendant’s foot was run over. The trial court enters a directed verdict for the defendant.
Issue: Whether the railway co. owes a duty to trespassers who enter on to tracks assume their own risks, particularly in such remote areas of the track.
Rule: The railway co. does not owe a duty to trespassers who enter on to tracks assume their own risks
•No distinction btw artificial and natural
¶No duty until you see a trespasser
Analysis: The railway company owes a public duty to areas such as street crossings where it is presumable that persons would come in contact with a train.
In this case, no such duty is owed.
The plaintiff was actually trespassing on the land of the railway in a remote location where the probability of a person coming into contact with a train was highly unlikely, in the absence of the plaintiff’s trespassory actions.
Conclusion: The court affirmed