## Facts

- Irvin Ezelle attempted to cross railroad tracks in Union Pacific’s yard and was struck by a moving freight car pushed by an engine.
- A yardmaster on the car shouted a warning, but it was too late or was not heeded.
- Ezelle suffered catastrophic injuries, including the loss of a leg and an arm.
- The trial court determined there was no careless act by railroad employees in operating the car and treated Ezelle as a trespasser; the impact was found non-negligent.
- After Ezelle was clear of the track, the yardmaster signaled the engineer to move ahead, citing concern about an approaching passenger train.
- The general yardmaster was informed shortly thereafter, and an ambulance was summoned by telephone.
- When the yardmaster returned, three switchmen were binding Ezelle’s wounds and attempting to stop the bleeding.
- Special findings stated: the accident occurred at 5:35 p.m.; a railroad employee immediately telephoned police for help; the ambulance left at 6:05 p.m. and arrived at the hospital at 6:20 p.m., where Ezelle received medical treatment.
- Ezelle later died; his mother sued for wrongful death, alleging liability based on failure to render aid after the accident.

## Issues

1. Whether a railroad whose employees non-negligently injure a trespasser owes an affirmative legal duty to take charge of the injured person and provide care, such that failure to render aid is actionable negligence.
2. Whether liability may be imposed for alleged omissions in post-accident assistance absent negligence in causing the accident or an undertaking that created a duty of reasonable care.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held that, where a trespasser is injured without fault by railroad employees, the employees’ failure to take charge of the injured person and provide care is not a breach of a legal duty actionable against the railroad.
- The court distinguished cases imposing liability where (a) the defendant’s servants were at fault in causing the injury, or (b) the defendant, though initially without fault, took charge of the injured person and then acted negligently in performing that undertaking.

## Legal Principles

- Absent negligence in causing injury, a defendant generally has no affirmative common-law duty to rescue or provide aid to an injured person.
- A trespasser is owed only limited duties; when the injury is not caused by the defendant’s fault, the law does not impose an additional duty to provide medical care.
- A duty to use reasonable care can arise when a defendant undertakes to take charge of an injured person; negligent performance of that assumed undertaking may be actionable.
- Courts will not impose an affirmative rescue obligation on these facts where the claimed omission precedes any legally cognizable assumption of responsibility.

## Conclusion

The court held that a railroad is not liable for failing to provide medical assistance to a trespasser injured without the railroad’s negligence, and it reversed a wrongful-death judgment that rested solely on an asserted post-accident duty to rescue.


Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cappier, 66 Kan. 649, 72 P. 281 (1903)