## Facts

- Canadian National Railway Co. leased and controlled a railroad bridge over the Androscoggin River between Lewiston and Auburn, Maine, about 410 feet long and roughly 50 feet above the river.
- The bridge consisted of tracks on wooden ties spaced several inches apart, with no guardrails or barriers to prevent pedestrians from falling, aside from widely spaced steel supports.
- Although a nearby vehicular/pedestrian bridge existed, residents frequently used the railroad bridge as a shortcut; the Railway had long known of this practice and sometimes posted “No Trespassing” signs that were often removed.
- On April 6, 1981, in dim light, 15-year-old Jonathan Thibodeau went onto the bridge and attempted to ride a bicycle across with the tires outside the rails despite a companion’s warning that he could die.
- Thibodeau fell from the bridge into the river.
- Police responded; Officer Rodney Bonney attempted to rescue Thibodeau and drowned.
- Bonney’s estate sued for wrongful death, alleging the Railway’s failure to make the bridge safe for known pedestrian use created the peril and, under the rescue doctrine, made the Railway liable for the rescuer’s death.

## Issues

1. Under Maine law, did the Railway breach a duty to trespasser Thibodeau by failing to make the bridge safe for pedestrian use despite longstanding knowledge of pedestrian trespassing?
2. If the Railway did not breach a duty to Thibodeau, could it nonetheless be liable to Officer Bonney under the rescue doctrine?

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the judgment for the plaintiff and entered judgment for the Railway.
- The court held Thibodeau was a trespasser and the Railway did not commit willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct by failing to add safety measures for trespassers.
- Because there was no breach of duty to Thibodeau, the Railway owed no derivative duty to Bonney under the rescue doctrine.

## Legal Principles

- Under Maine premises-liability law, a land possessor generally owes trespassers no duty of reasonable care to make premises safe, but must refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that injures them.
- Foreseeability of trespassers and injury does not, by itself, expand the limited duty owed to trespassers.
- An open and obvious danger, without concealment, traps, or affirmative misconduct directed at trespassers, typically will not support a finding of willful, wanton, or reckless conduct based solely on a failure to add protective measures.
- The rescue doctrine permits recovery by a rescuer only when the defendant’s antecedent conduct is tortious toward the person imperiled; it does not create an independent duty to rescuers absent a predicate breach.

## Conclusion

The court held that a railroad’s knowing tolerance of pedestrian trespassing on an obviously dangerous bridge did not convert its failure to install safety protections into willful, wanton, or reckless misconduct toward a trespasser under Maine law, and without a breach to the person rescued, the rescue doctrine did not support liability for the rescuer’s death.


Bonney v. Canadian Nat’l Ry. Co., 800 F.2d 274 (1st Cir. 1986)