Court Opinion

ID: 9765687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:14:01.906876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:13.520601
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Cohen:
Section 336 of the Restatement, Torts provides:“A possessor, of land who knows that another is trespassing thereon or from facts known to him should, know or believe that another is or may be doing so, is subject to liability for bodily -harm thereafter caused to the trespasser by the possessor’s failure to carry on his activities upon the land with reasonable care for the trespasser’s safety.”
*597“Illustration 1. The engineer of the X & Y Railroad Company sees lying upon the track a pile of clothing such as would give a reasonable man cause to suspect that it might contain a human being. Under these circumstances the engineer is not entitled to assume that it is not a human being but is required to keep the engine under control until he is certain that it is not such.”
If decedent is to be treated as a trespasser, §336 and the above quoted illustration, applied to the instant case, would raise the following questions: Would a reasonable man in the position of the PTC’s driver have suspected that the object on the tracks in the area of the platform was a human being? If so, would a reasonable man have acted as the PTC’s driver acted? It seems to me a reasonable jury could answer the first question affirmatively and the second negatively and, therefore, I would affirm the imposition of liability upon the PTC. As is pointed out by the Pennsylvania Annotation to §336 and Eldredge, Tort Liability To Trespassers, 12 Temple L. Q. 32 (1937), Modern Tort Problems .163 (1941), “wilfulness or wantonness” is merely a characterization of the conduct of a possessor who is negligent toward a trespasser of whose presence he is or should be aware.
Moreover, I would not treat decedent as a mere trespasser whose presence defendant has no duty to anticipate. It seems unrealistic to require no greater duty toward passengers or potential passengers invited into the area of the subway platform than is required toward individuals who come onto or into the area of railway tracks uninvited and undesired. The PTC should have a duty to watch out for persons in positions of danger in the platform area. In fact, in most instances it probably acts like it has such a duty.
I dissent.