Case Title: Strauss v. Missouri Pacific Rld. Co.

Citation: 175 Kan. 98, 259 P.2d 145

Docket Number: 39,021

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1953-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
175 Kan. 98 (1953)
259 P.2d 145
FELIX STRAUSS, Appellant,
v.
GUY A. THOMPSON, Trustee, MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Debtor, Appellee.
No. 39,021

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed July 6, 1953.
Ward D. Martin, of Topeka, argued the cause, and Harry T. Coffman, of Lyndon, was with him on the briefs for the appellant.
Ralph M. Hope, of Wichita, argued the cause, and Alex Hotchkiss, of Lyndon, and W.F. Lilleston, of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
WEDELL, J.:
Felix Strauss instituted this action against Guy A. Thompson, Trustee of the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, *99 Debtor, to recover damages for the wrongful death of his son, Andrew Felix Strauss, and for damages to personal property.
The district court overruled defendant's general demurrer to the second amended petition. From that ruling defendant has not appealed and the question whether the second amended petition states a cause of action is not presently before us. The district court, however, struck certain portions of that petition pursuant to defendant's motion. The motion was treated by the parties and the court as being tantamount to a demurrer to the particular portions stricken. It is from the latter order that plaintiff appeals. He contends the court struck out material portions of his cause of action.
For purposes of clarity in discussing the various contentions the second amended petition is appended hereto in its entirety. The portions of the first cause of action stricken were: Paragraph 7, italicized portions of paragraph 8; the italicized word "negligently" in paragraph 9; and subdivisions (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of paragraph 10.
Appellant states the trial court struck out substantially all averments pertaining to alleged negligence in the location, construction and maintenance of the private crossing. We think that is a fair general statement except that we do not find appellee was charged with negligently locating the crossing. The most favorable construction of the petition to appellant in this respect is the allegation in paragraph 10 (e) that the location of the latter crossing constituted an invitation to appellant to use it.
In any event the first and fundamental question presented by the instant appeal is whether appellee was required to furnish appellant a private crossing at its own expense. The answer requires an examination of the written instrument referred to in paragraph 5 of the petition whereby appellee's predecessor acquired title to the land for the right of way from previous owners of the land. What were the terms, conditions and obligations, if any, of the grantee with respect to the latter's duty to furnish appellant a private crossing? The original conveyance was executed July 16, 1886. It constituted an outright sale of the fee simple title to the strip of land in question. The title thereto was warranted by the grantors. The instrument provided the title to the land should revert to the grantors in case of abandonment or nonuse of the land for railroad purposes. No abandonment or nonuse was alleged and the petition discloses the contrary.
*100 The stated consideration for the sale was $121.00. The instrument included additional rights and privileges to the grantee which are not now in question and need not be noted. In the conveyance the grantors reserved no easement over the railroad and no duties were imposed on the grantee to construct or maintain a private crossing over the railroad for the used and benefit of the grantors.
It is true we have a statute enacted in 1911 which reads:
As previously indicated appellee's predecessor in title acquired title to the strip of land in question long prior to the enactment of the above statute. It was early determined the statute is not applicable to land acquired for railroad purposes before the enactment of the statute and that under such circumstances a railroad cannot be compelled to furnish a crossing over the railroad for the private use and benefit of the landowner to connect portions of his land. (Chamberlain v. Railway Co., 107 Kan. 341, 191 Pac. 261.) It also may be noted the instant petition discloses the crossing was located where it now is at the time appellant contracted to purchase the farm in 1949. We find no allegation in the instant petition that appellant or any former landowner requested appellee to change the location of the crossing and offered to bear the expense of constructing and maintaining a crossing elsewhere or to maintain this one at its present location.
It probably should be stated appellant's brief does not indicate he relies on the above statute. His counsel also frankly concede they have found no Kansas case supporting their contention that appellee was required to construct and maintain a private crossing at its own expense for appellant's use and benefit. They rely on certain railroad accident cases from other jurisdictions to which we shall refer later.
Briefly stated the substance of appellant's primary contention is that, having undertaken to construct a private crossing, it became appellee's implied duty to maintain it in a proper condition for appellant's use. In reply, appellee, in substance, asserts its construction of a crossing constituted a mere gratuity to appellant which the latter could accept or reject if unsatisfactory to him; that if the *101 crossing gratuitously provided were regarded as inadequate by appellant he might, with appellee's consent, construct and maintain at his own expense the same or a different crossing which would meet his requirements; that appellant was a licensee who accepted and used the crossing in the condition in which he found it and that the petition discloses he had full knowledge of its condition before the accident.
This brings us to a consideration of the legal relationship of the parties and the rights and duties incident thereto.
From what has been said it is clear appellant did not acquire an easement over the railroad by agreement. What appellant had was permissive use of a crossing, voluntarily provided by appellee. A mere privilege or permissive use, as distinguished from an adverse claim of right, does not ripen into an easement by prescription irrespective of the length of time such use continues. (Railway Co. v. Conlon, 62 Kan. 416, 63 Pac. 432.) See, also, Persinger v. Mitchell, 174 Kan. 522, 256 P.2d 866; and a case this day decided, Fiest v. Steere, 175 Kan. 1, 259 P.2d 140.
The construction of the private crossing was purely an accommodation to appellant. Appellee, being under no duty to construct a crossing, was under no duty to maintain it, absent an agreement to do so. Under these circumstances it has been held appellant was a mere, naked licensee and the license was revocable at the pleasure of the licensor. (Railway Co. v. Conlon, supra, p. 421.)
In 44 Am. Jur., Railroads, § 425, a licensee is defined thus:
Restatement, Torts, § 330, defines a licensee as follows:
In 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 35 d, is found the following statement:
Appellant argues he had an implied easement and leans heavily on the early case of Railway Co. v. Conlon, 9 Kan. App. 116, 57 Pac. 1063 (1899). That case did not involve the specific question here presented, namely, whether the railroad was under a legal duty to construct and maintain a private crossing for the landowner. That question, as heretofore indicated, was determined against appellant's contention in Chamberlain v. Railway Co., supra (1920). In Railway Co. v. Conlon, 62 Kan. 416, 63 Pac. 432 (1901)), previously cited herein, it appears the same crossing as in the first case of Railway Co. v. Conlon, supra (1899) was involved. In the later Conlon case and upon facts showing a fee simple title in the railway company to the 100-foot strip of land, not disclosed in the first Conlon case, this court held:
Appellant stresses statements in the opinion of the first Conlon case relative to the care required by the railroad company to avoid injury to cattle which were negotiating the crossing. We desire to emphasize that we are not presently concerned with the question *103 of the degree of care the railroad company was required to exercise in the operation of its train. Those allegations of the petition were not stricken and are not now involved. They pertain to alleged active negligence in the operation of the train. Nor are we now interested in appellee's contention relative to what it states constituted the proximate or legal and efficient cause of the damage sustained. The single question with which we are presently concerned is whether appellee is liable in damages for failure to furnish appellant a private crossing adequate for his needs at its own expense. That question has already received a negative answer herein.
The opinion might well end here. However, in view of appellant's argument that he has an implied easement we shall briefly pursue his contention. The argument, if sound, could not aid appellant in this case. Absent an agreement to the contrary the duty to maintain an easement rests on the person claiming it. (Spalding v. Louisville & N.R. Co., 281 Ky. 357, 136 S.W.2d 1.) See thorough discussion of subject, with citation of authorities, in 17 Am. Jur., Easements, §§ 108 and 111.
We have not overlooked decisions from other jurisdictions furnished by the industry of appellant's counsel. They, and additional authorities, have been examined with care. We need not analyze them separately. Some of them deal with distinctly public crossings and some with crossings of a public nature. In one of them the railroad constructed a crossing over its railroad tracks between city streets and it deliberately invited the public to use such crossing. In some of the cases cited the courts expressly distinguished the cases involving public crossings from those pertaining to private crossings connecting portions of a farmer's land. Cases cited by appellant which appear applicable are not in harmony with our own decisions on the question of the railroad's duty to furnish a private crossing at its own expense.
There was no demurrer to the second amended petition after the court struck the portions thereof here involved. Appellee filed its answer. The case stands for trial on the issues thus joined. What has been said herein does not pertain to the active negligence charged in the operation of the train. That question is not before us and obviously we express no views thereon.
The order of the district court striking the designated portions of the second amended petition is affirmed.