Opinion ID: 1621484
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: James's Appreciation of Danger

Text: Norfolk Southern argues that there is no genuine issue of fact with regard to element § 339(c), which deals with the child's appreciation of the danger of the instrumentality. We agree. The record supports a finding that James understood the risk involved in walking on the railroad right-of-way and that he appreciated the danger posed by a stopped train. James testified that he knew that trains were dangerous and that his parents had repeatedly warned him not to walk on the railroad tracks without an adult. He stated that he had heard of a man who got killed by, run over by a train. After the train came to a stop, James and Raymond turned around and walked back toward James's house. James testified: We didn't want to get to the front of the train, like if it just started back and stuff. That would be kind of scary. When Norfolk Southern's attorney asked James if he turned around because you knew if the train came to a stop there, it would probably start back up at some point? James replied, Yes, sir. Finally, James was aware, immediately before the accident, that the train was ready to move because, he testified, he heard the whooshing sound of the train's air brakes being released, and he was familiar enough with that sound to associate it with a train starting to move. Norfolk Southern produced sufficient evidence indicating that James appreciated the danger of approaching the stopped train and that, therefore, he could not satisfy element (c) of § 339. [2] See Dennis v. Northcutt, 923 So.2d 275, 281 (Ala.2005) (`If the burden of proof at trial is on the nonmovant, the movant may satisfy the Rule 56[, Ala. R. Civ. P.,] burden of production either by submitting affirmative evidence that negates an essential element in the nonmovant's claim or, assuming discovery has been completed, by demonstrating to the trial court that the nonmovant's evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of the nonmovant's claim ....'). Norfolk Southern has thus met its burden of establishing that summary judgment was appropriate in this case. In order to defeat a properly supported summary-judgment motion, Laster must present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. Dennis, 923 So.2d at 280. Evidence is substantial if it is of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved. West v. Founders Life, 547 So.2d at 871. Laster, however, put forward no evidence indicating that James did not appreciate the danger of approaching the train after it had stopped. Indeed, Laster states in his brief that the accident occurred as James was attempting to leave the area of the train out of respect for the danger it posed. Laster's brief at 36. The evidence suggests that James understood that trains are dangerous. He understood that the train could begin to move again at anytime, yet he attempted to pull his friend from the train. In Hollis v. Norfolk Southern Ry., 667 So.2d 727 (Ala.1995), this Court discussed whether § 339(c) applied to a 16-year-old who was injured as he walked along the edge of a man-made cliff at night. The Court, discussing whether the teenager appreciated the danger of this course of action, stated that a landowner is not subject to liability when a child knows of a danger and appreciates the risk involved, but chooses to go forward and to encounter the danger out of `recklessness or bravado.' Hollis, 667 So.2d at 732 (quoting Restatement (Second) Torts § 339 cmt. m.). Here, although James's motive in trying to help his friend is commendable, he appreciated the danger posed by the train and nonetheless approached the train. Laster argues that, given the stress of the emergency situation created when the train began to move, the boys should not be held to the same correctness of judgment and ability to recognize danger to which a child would be held in normal circumstances. See Interstate Eng'g, Inc. v. Burnette, 474 So.2d 624, 628 (Ala.1985) (`[I]f a person without fault of his own is faced with a sudden emergency, he is not to be held to the same correctness of judgment or actions as if he had time to fully consider the situation ....'). However, Laster presents no evidence indicating that James did not appreciate the danger of the situation, notwithstanding the stress of the moment.