## Facts

- Janet A. Reid (plaintiff) owned cattle in Salt Lake County, Utah, near the railroad line operated by San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad (defendant).
- Utah statutes required a railroad to erect and maintain lawful fences along portions of its line running through certain privately owned, improved lands, with cattle guards at crossings.
- Reid alleged the Railroad negligently allowed its right-of-way fencing to fall into disrepair, permitting one of her cows to get onto the tracks.
- The cow was struck and killed by a passing train, and Reid sued to recover the value of the animal.
- At trial, evidence indicated two possible ways the cow could have entered the right of way: through a place where the fence was down or through a gate/opening that may have been left open.
- Reid could not prove which route the cow took, and there was no proof that the Railroad, rather than someone else, left the gate open.
- The jury returned a verdict for Reid, and the Railroad appealed, arguing the evidence did not support a finding that its negligence caused the cow to get onto the track.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may recover for the death of livestock allegedly caused by a railroad’s failure to maintain fencing when the evidence leaves it equally probable that the animal entered the right of way through a defective fence (actionable) or through an open gate not shown to be the railroad’s fault (not actionable).

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court held that Reid’s proof did not establish causation by a preponderance of the evidence because it was just as likely the cow entered through an open gate as through a defective fence.
- The court ruled that when the plaintiff’s evidence supports two inconsistent explanations with equal probability, one creating liability and the other not, the plaintiff has not met the burden of proof.
- The court reversed the judgment for Reid and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff bears the burden to prove each element of a negligence claim, including causation, by a preponderance of the evidence.
- If the evidence is consistent with two competing causes and leaves the factfinder to guess which occurred, the plaintiff fails as a matter of law when one cause would impose liability and the other would not.
- Evidence that a railroad fence was in disrepair is not enough by itself; the plaintiff must also show that the disrepair was the route by which the animal reached the tracks, rather than some other, nonactionable route.
- A verdict cannot stand when it rests on speculation about the essential causal link between an alleged breach of duty and the injury.

## Conclusion

Reid could not recover for her cow’s death because her own proof left the cause of the cow’s presence on the tracks evenly balanced between a defective fence (which could support liability) and an open gate not shown to be the Railroad’s fault (which would not), so the Utah Supreme Court reversed the plaintiff’s judgment and remanded.


Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad, 39 Utah 617, 118 P. 1009 (1911)