## Facts

- A railroad owned and operated a locomotive turntable near Clarks, Nebraska, about 70 feet from a public footpath commonly used by residents, including children.
- No fence or barrier separated the footpath from the turntable area.
- The railroad knew the footpath was regularly used and that neighborhood children frequently played on or near the turntable.
- The turntable could be secured with a movable bolt; the railroad had an internal rule requiring the turntable to be locked when not in use to prevent injuries.
- The turntable was often left unlocked and unguarded despite the rule.
- A four-year-old child and other children played on an unlocked turntable; while it was moving, the child’s foot was caught and severed at the ankle.
- The child, through a next friend, sued the railroad for negligence based on failure to take reasonable precautions to protect foreseeable child entrants.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner operating dangerous but useful machinery owes a duty of ordinary care to protect very young children, known or reasonably expected to come onto the premises, from injury.
2. What factors govern whether failure to adopt a safety precaution constitutes negligence when the condition is dangerous but serves a beneficial use.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error through jury instructions that effectively decided negligence, misstated damages (including earning capacity of a minor), or otherwise improperly guided the jury.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court held the pleadings were sufficient and the evidence could support a jury finding that leaving the turntable unlocked was negligent given the foreseeability of child presence and the apparent low burden of locking.
- The court reversed the plaintiff’s judgment and remanded for a new trial due to instructional and damages errors.
- The court ruled it was improper for instructions to treat a stated set of facts as negligence rather than leaving negligence to the jury under proper legal standards.
- The court found error in permitting diminished earning capacity as an element of the child’s damages without limiting it to the period when the child would be legally entitled to his own earnings.
- The court disapproved an instruction inviting jurors to rely on personal knowledge not limited to matters of common experience, and criticized referencing the amount demanded in the pleadings in the damages instruction.

## Legal Principles

- When an owner knows or has reason to believe very young children, incapable of appreciating danger, will resort to dangerous premises or instrumentalities, the owner must take the precautions that an ordinarily prudent person would take under like circumstances to prevent likely injury.
- Whether precautions are required is evaluated by considering: (1) the character and location of the premises, (2) the purpose for which they are used, (3) the probability of injury, (4) the precautions necessary to prevent injury, and (5) how those precautions affect the beneficial use of the premises or instrumentality.
- Negligence ordinarily presents a fact question for the jury; courts should instruct on governing standards and factors, not direct the conclusion by characterizing particular facts as negligence.
- In an infant’s action where the child remains under parental custody, instructions on future earning capacity must reflect that parents are generally entitled to the child’s earnings during minority.
- Jury guidance should confine reliance on experience to matters shared in common by the public and should not highlight the pleaded damages amount as a reference point for awarding damages.

## Conclusion

The court accepted that a jury could find negligence where a railroad left a turntable unsecured despite knowing small children regularly played nearby and a simple lock would reduce a foreseeable risk of severe harm with little effect on operations, but it ordered a new trial because the jury instructions and damages charge improperly constrained the negligence determination and misstated recoverable damages.


Chi., B. & Q. R.R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl, 65 Neb. 889, 91 N.W. 880 (Neb. 1902)