Court Opinion

ID: 9750581
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 15:08:16.470946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:13.095727
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Jones :
This appeal involves the question of the responsibility of a railroad company for damages for injuries sustained by an adult pedestrian when she fell through a hole in the floor of a railroad-owned and maintained bridge.
A reading of the record reveals that the injured plaintiff had been walking on the railroad right-of-way parallel to the railroad tracks until she arrived at the railroad bridge; the bridge—40 to 50 feet in length— contained one set of railroad tracks on either side of which tracks was a wooden-plank walkway laid paral*106lei to the tracks; on the date in question a plank was missing from the walkway and, as the injured plaintiff was walking over the bridge and parallel to the tracks, she fell through the opening in the walkway which was then concealed from her view by snow. There was testimony that for a long period of time the public had walked along the right-of-way of the railroad tracks and over the bridge and that the plank had been missing for about three weeks prior to the accident.
In Pennsylvania we have recognized the existence of permissive crossings over the tracks of a railroad. However, our case law unequivocally holds that there cannot be a recognized permissive way parallel or longitudinal to the railroad tracks on the railroad right-of-way and that one who travels longitudinally and parallel to railroad tracks on the railroad right-of-way occupies the status of a trespasser: Falchetti v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 307 Pa. 203, 160 A. 859 (1932). See also: Miller v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 350 Pa. 424, 39 A. 2d 576 (1944) ; Davies v. Delaware L. & W. Railroad Co., 370 Pa. 180, 87 A. 2d 183 (1952); Tompkins v. Erie Railroad Co., 98 F. 2d 49 (1938); Antonas v. Lyford, 144 F. 2d 763 (1944). In Tompkins the Court stated: “The basis for differentiating between longitudinal and crossing paths lies in a balancing of the interests to be protected. People must be permitted to get across the right of way, and where they have been accustomed to cross at the same spot in considerable numbers for a sufficient period of time, a permissive way is established and the railway company must exercise due care to avoid injuring pedestrians who may there be expected. But a wayfarer who walks parallel and adjacent to the track has no such interest as would justify imposing upon the railroad a duty which might interfere with the operation of its trains along the whole length of its right of way, if tres*107passers could acquire such rights.” (at p. 52). Our case law clearly places a person such as the instant plaintiff in the status of a trespasser; in my opinion such case law should not be changed as the majority opinion would do.
The instant plaintiff was simply a trespasser. The railroad company owed her the duty not to injure her by wanton or willful misconduct. The instant record does not reveal any evidence of any ivanton or willful misconduct on the part of the railroad.
The majority opinion, in addition to overruling Falchetti, supra, and the decisions following the Falchetii rule, invokes §385 of the Restatement 2d, Torts, to delineate the duty of the railroad in this situation, even if the plaintiff be considered a trespasser. Not only has §335 not been adopted by this Court but it is contrary to the long recognized rule in this Commonwealth, i.e., that a plaintiff who is a trespasser can recover only if the defendant is guilty of wanton or willful misconduct. See: Frederick v. P. R. T. Co., 337 Pa. 136, 10 A. 2d 576 (1940); Evans v. P. T. C., 418 Pa. 567, 212 A. 2d 440 (1965) ; Wilson v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 421 Pa. 419, 219 A. 2d 666 (1966).
I can perceive nothing in the case at bar which justifies setting aside our well established rule which places this plaintiff in the status of a trespasser or the adoption of §335 of the Restatement 2d, Torts. For these reasons I dissent.
Mr. Chief Justice Bell joins in this dissenting opinion.