Sheehan v. St. Paul & Duluth Railway Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1896 · Torts

76 F. 201 (7th Cir. 1896)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsRailroad negligenceTrespasserstrespasserrailroaddutyactual discoveryno constructive notice

Facts

The plaintiff was injured while on the defendant railroad's track at a place not open to public travel, where he was, on the undisputed facts, a trespasser. He became caught in a cattle guard and claimed the engineer saw him earlier and delayed stopping the train. The plaintiff's own prior adopted statement, along with testimony from two witnesses, placed his outcry and visible distress only when the engine was within about 200 feet or less. The train crew testified they applied every available means immediately upon hearing the cry but could not stop in time under the existing conditions.

Issue

When a person is a trespasser on a railroad track at a place not open to travel, does the railroad owe a duty to keep lookout for him or anticipate his presence, and was there sufficient evidence here that the train crew, after actually discovering his peril, negligently failed to use reasonable promptness to stop the train?

Rule

A railroad company has the right to a free track in places not open to travel and owes no affirmative duty to anticipate trespassers there or keep a constant lookout for them. A trespasser assumes the risks of entering the track, and the railroad's duty arises only upon actual discovery of the trespasser's peril; from that moment, the crew must make all reasonable effort with available means to avert injury. Before such discovery, matters such as speed, manner of operation, and condition of roadbed or equipment are not grounds of liability to the trespasser because no pre-existing positive duty is owed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Late at night outside Akron, Ohio, Devin Cross cut across the tracks of Lakeview Freight Lines at a fenced stretch between crossings to save time. A switching engine struck him after the crew first noticed him only moments before impact and immediately applied the brakes.

If Devin sues the railroad for negligence, which argument is strongest under the governing rule?

Explanation. Where a person is a trespasser on railroad tracks at a place not open to travel, the railroad has no affirmative duty to anticipate his presence or maintain a constant lookout for him. Its duty arises only upon actual discovery of the trespasser's peril, after which it must use reasonable efforts with available means to avoid injury. Pre-discovery speed or general operation does not create liability to such a trespasser.