Court Opinion

ID: 9792788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:36:28.596418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:08.806553
License: Public Domain

RUSSON, Justice,
concurring in the result:
I concur in the result of the majority opinion but for an entirely different reason than that stated by the majority.
The statute clearly and unambiguously provides that a person on or about a train without authority cannot recover damages for injury unless the injury was caused by an intentional act of the Railroad with knowledge of the presence of that person and with a reasonable belief that the intentional act would seriously injure that person.
Specifically, the statute provides:
(1) A person other than a railroad employee may not ride or climb or attempt to ride or climb on, off, under, over, or across a locomotive, railroad car, or railroad train without authority from the owner or operator of the railroad.
(2) A person other than a railroad employee who is injured while violating Subsection (1) may not recover damages for his injury from the owner or operator of the railroad unless:
*606(a) the injury was caused by an intentional act of the owner or operator of the railroad with knowledge of the presence of the person; and
(b)(i) the circumstances under which the injury occurred were such that a reasonable person would believe that serious injury would probably result from the act of the owner or operator of the railroad; or
(ii) the owner or operator of the railroad acted with a wanton and reckless disregard of the probable result of his act.
Utah Code Ann. § 56-1-18.5 (emphasis added). The statute makes perfectly clear that a person on or about a train without authority who is injured cannot recover unless he can prove that the railroad knew of his presence and, regardless of that knowledge, operated the train with reasonable knowledge that serious injury would probably result to that person.
However, the majority completely disregards the clear requirements of the statute and states that the mere act of moving the train is an intentional act under the statute and such act imposes liability on the Railroad regardless of lack of knowledge of the trespasser. The majority states that knowing of the possibility, due to prior experience with trespassers, that unauthorized persons are present is sufficient to impose liability. The majority’s position that the mere act of moving the train is an intentional act contemplated by the statute is disingenuous. The act of driving a car is an intentional act but does not become actionable unless the driver is negligent, and does not become actionable as an intentional tort unless the driver knows of the presence of a person and intentionally drives the vehicle into him knowing the potential for serious injury. Likewise, the intentional act of shooting a gun does not impose liability upon the shooter for an intentional tort unless the shooter knew the victim was present and intended to injure him. The shooter may be liable for negligence in shooting into an area where he knew, or should have known, that people possibly were present, but the intentional act of shooting does not become actionable as such until connected with knowledge of the presence of a person and the likelihood that he would be seriously injured. Likewise, in this case the statute specifically provides that the intentional act of moving the train is not actionable unless the operator or other employees knew of a person present and operated the train knowing that such movement would probably seriously injure that person.
In the case before us, the train crew did not know of the presence of Lopez or any other person when they moved the train and therefore could not have reasonably believed that moving the train would probably seriously injure him. While the Railroad may have been negligent, the statute does not allow for recovery for negligence in the case of an unauthorized person. It allows recovery to such a person only where the railroad knows of his presence and knows that moving the train would probably seriously injure him.
The majority’s reason for reversing and remanding this case is flawed. However, I likewise would reverse and remand, but for the reason that there is a question of fact as to whether Lopez was an unauthorized person. He may or may not have had implied authority to cross through the train, and thus, I would remand this case for determination of whether Lopez had implied authority to cut across and/or be in the area of the train at the time and place in question and, if so, whether the Railroad breached its duty to him.