## Facts

- Sheehan walked along the defendant railroad’s main track in Carlton, Minnesota, at a location that was not a public crossing.
- He slipped and his foot became caught in an iron cattle guard on the track.
- Around 2:30 p.m., during switching operations, a locomotive moving backward pulled 16 empty flat cars downgrade on a wet, slippery track after light snowfall.
- The cattle guard was about 1,000 feet from the depot; between them were multiple side/switch tracks, several switches, and a street crossing located west of the cattle guard.
- Sheehan was undisputedly a trespasser and neither a passenger nor in a place where the public was licensed to travel.
- As the train approached, Sheehan attempted to attract the crew’s attention by signaling and shouting.
- Evidence addressed when the engineer first saw Sheehan and whether the train could have been stopped in time; testimony indicated stopping might not have been possible if discovery occurred at about 200 feet.
- The train ran over Sheehan’s foot, severing it.
- The trial court directed a verdict for the railroad at the close of the evidence; Sheehan appealed.

## Issues

1. What duty does a railroad owe to a trespasser walking along its tracks away from a public crossing, and when does that duty arise?
2. Whether the evidence permitted a finding that, after discovering Sheehan’s peril, the train crew failed to use reasonable efforts to prevent the injury.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the directed verdict for the railroad.
- The railroad owed no duty to anticipate or guard against trespassers on the track at non-crossing points.
- The railroad’s duty to a trespasser arose only upon actual discovery of the trespasser’s presence and peril, requiring reasonable efforts to avert injury.
- On the record, no reasonable jury could find that the crew failed to make reasonable efforts after discovery, particularly given the short distance at which discovery could be found and the evidence on stopping limitations.

## Legal Principles

- A railroad generally is not required to anticipate trespassers on its tracks away from public crossings and is entitled to operate on the assumption of a clear track at such locations.
- Trespassers on non-crossing portions of a track assume the risks incident to that unauthorized use, including the presence and movement of trains.
- Once a trespasser’s presence and peril are actually discovered, the railroad must make reasonable efforts to avoid injury.
- Liability may arise for wanton injury to a trespasser, but ordinary negligence principles apply only after discovery of peril under the limited post-discovery duty.

## Conclusion

Because Sheehan was a trespasser and the evidence did not support a finding that the railroad failed to act reasonably after discovering his peril, the directed verdict for the railroad was proper and was affirmed on appeal.


Sheehan v. St. Paul & Duluth Ry. Co., 76 F. 201 (7th Cir. 1896)