## Facts

- Eldee Edwards, Jr., age 11, and friends rode bicycles onto Conrail’s track area in Northeast Washington, D.C., despite posted “No Unauthorized Vehicles” signs and “no trespassing” warnings on catenary poles.
- Edwards climbed onto the top of a freight car on Conrail’s tracks and suffered severe electrical shock and burns after coming close to an energized overhead catenary wire.
- The catenary wire was approximately 18.5 feet above the tracks and was ordinarily inaccessible from the ground.
- The tracks were “through tracks,” where trains typically passed through and stopped only briefly and irregularly for signals, rather than a yard where cars remained for extended periods.
- A witness reported the train had been stopped about twenty minutes and that children had been seen in the area previously.
- Edwards and the other boys were unaware of the danger posed by high-voltage overhead wires and did not view trains as especially dangerous.
- Conrail could not feasibly insulate the catenary system, faced no statutory or regulatory duty to fence this right-of-way, and had implemented some safety measures (limited fencing, warning signs, and de-energizing wires in storage or routinely reachable areas).
- Edwards and his father sued Conrail for negligence, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether, under District of Columbia law applying Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, Conrail owed a duty to protect a child trespasser from injury caused by an overhead catenary wire above through tracks.
2. Whether the catenary wire presented an “unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm” to trespassing children that Conrail should have anticipated.
3. Whether Conrail’s existing measures were insufficient such that a reasonable jury could find negligence based on failure to take additional precautions, considering the burden and practicality of those precautions.

## Decision

- The court granted Conrail’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for Conrail.
- Edwards was a trespasser, and § 339 governed any potential liability to a child trespasser.
- The overhead catenary wire, given its height and ordinary inaccessibility, did not constitute an “unreasonable risk” within the meaning of § 339 on these facts.
- The court found plaintiffs’ reliance on prior-incident evidence inadequate because the cited incidents were not sufficiently similar in circumstances to show foreseeability of the specific hazard scenario.
- The court concluded that the utility of the catenary system and the burden of additional precautions were not slight compared to the limited, highly contingent risk that a child would reach the wire by climbing a freight car during a brief stop.

## Legal Principles

- In the District of Columbia, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 governs liability for harm to trespassing children caused by artificial conditions on land.
- § 339 requires, among other elements, that the land possessor know or have reason to know children are likely to trespass, that the condition pose an unreasonable risk of death or serious harm, that children not appreciate the risk due to youth, and that the burden of eliminating the danger be slight compared to the risk.
- A condition’s accessibility is central to whether it presents an “unreasonable risk” to trespassing children; severe danger alone does not establish liability if access is atypical and the encounter is not reasonably anticipated.
- Evidence of prior accidents or incidents is probative of danger and notice only if the prior events are substantially similar in time and circumstances; dissimilar incidents have reduced probative value and increased prejudice.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where, even viewing evidence in the plaintiff’s favor, the § 339 elements cannot be satisfied as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that Conrail was not liable for catastrophic injuries to an 11-year-old trespasser because the energized catenary wire above through tracks was ordinarily inaccessible and did not present an unreasonable, foreseeable risk to children under Restatement § 339, and the burden of further precautions was not slight relative to the limited risk scenario.


Edwards v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 567 F. Supp. 1087 (D.D.C. 1983)