## Facts

- Mark Menard lived near a CSX freight yard in West Springfield, Massachusetts, and regularly walked across the yard to reach his home, as did other nearby residents.
- On July 30, 2008, Menard entered the yard and alleged that several CSX employees saw him enter and made eye contact but did not tell him to leave.
- Menard acknowledged he was on railroad property used for switching and storing trains; he alleged warnings were not clear.
- Menard saw a slowly moving train on a nearby track controlled by an engineer and guided by a ground conductor; he alleged neither warned him to leave, though the conductor waved an arm.
- Menard’s right foot was pinned and crushed by a moving rail switch.
- Menard freed himself, staggered roughly 30 feet, was struck by an oncoming train, and suffered catastrophic injuries, including severance of his left leg, severe damage to his left arm, and later amputation of his right foot.
- Menard and his wife sued CSX alleging negligence and recklessness, relying on a Massachusetts rule that a landowner must use reasonable care to protect a trespasser once the landowner knows the trespasser is in peril.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint and proposed amended complaint plausibly alleged that CSX employees had actual knowledge that Menard, a trespasser, was in peril, such that CSX owed a duty of reasonable care under Massachusetts law.
2. Whether the district court erred by dismissing under Rule 12(b)(6) and denying leave to amend as futile without allowing Menard an opportunity to justify narrowly targeted discovery on CSX’s knowledge of peril.

## Decision

- The First Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded.
- The court did not hold that Menard had proved liability or that his pleadings already established the exception as a matter of law.
- The remand required giving Menard an opportunity to explain what basis he had to seek narrow discovery aimed at the “peril-and-negligence” allegation (CSX’s actual knowledge of his peril) before dismissal with prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Under Massachusetts premises-liability law, a landowner generally owes trespassers only a limited duty, but may owe a duty of reasonable care once the landowner knows a trespasser is in peril.
- At the pleading stage, proposed amended allegations are taken as true when amendment was denied solely as futile and would otherwise ordinarily be allowed as a first amendment.
- When a critical element (such as a defendant’s actual knowledge) is plausibly alleged but the supporting details are largely within the defendant’s control, a court may consider permitting narrow, targeted discovery rather than foreclosing the claim outright at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit vacated the dismissal and denial of amendment and remanded so the plaintiff could attempt to justify limited discovery on whether CSX actually knew he was in peril, a fact that could trigger a narrow duty of reasonable care despite his trespasser status under Massachusetts law.


Menard v. CSX Transp., Inc., 698 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2012)