## Facts

- An eight-year-old child, through a guardian, sued a railroad for injuries sustained on a railroad turntable located on the railroad’s property in Santa Ana, California.
- The turntable was about 150 yards from the depot, near the engine house, and about 72 feet from a public street.
- The area was not fenced or otherwise guarded, and there was no barrier separating the turntable from the street or nearby residences.
- Families with small children lived nearby, and children frequently played around and on the turntable, including spinning it for amusement.
- Railroad employees sometimes ordered children away when seen on the turntable, but the practice of children playing there continued, and the railroad had notice of it.
- The turntable had a latch and slot commonly used in the railroad industry to fasten it when not in use.
- On the day of the accident, boys spun the turntable to give the plaintiff a ride; the plaintiff’s leg was caught in the mechanism, causing injuries requiring amputation.
- The railroad argued the plaintiff was a trespasser and that using a customary latch satisfied any duty of care.

## Issues

1. Whether a railroad that knows or should know children frequently play on its turntable owes a duty of reasonable care to those children despite their technical trespasser status and the turntable being secured in a customary manner.
2. Whether the evidence of negligence was sufficient to go to the jury, making denial of nonsuit and a new trial proper.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff and the order denying a new trial.
- The court held the railroad owed a duty of reasonable care because it knew or had reason to know young children frequently played on or around the turntable.
- The court held the evidence permitted a jury finding of negligence; the negligence question was not resolved as a matter of law by proof of industry custom.
- The court rejected the argument that the involvement of other boys in setting the turntable in motion relieved the railroad of liability.

## Legal Principles

- A landowner may owe a duty of reasonable care toward young children who foreseeably and frequently trespass where a dangerous condition is maintained and the landowner has notice of the recurring presence of children.
- Compliance with industry custom is relevant evidence of ordinary care but is not conclusive; a jury may still find negligence if reasonable precautions under the circumstances required more.
- Foreseeable concurrent acts by other children contributing to the injury do not necessarily break causation or absolve the defendant when the defendant’s negligence created the hazardous opportunity.

## Conclusion

Because the railroad maintained an unguarded turntable near a public street and residences with notice that children commonly played on it, the railroad owed reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm; the jury could find negligence despite customary fastening practices, and the plaintiff’s verdict was affirmed.


Barrett v. S. Pac. Co., 91 Cal. 296, 27 P. 666 (Cal. 1891)