Takeaway
In short, this case shows that a plaintiff must prove that livestock entered through the railroad's defective fencing, not merely show that such a defect existed; but circumstantial evidence can establish entry through an improperly unfenced area when the physical facts point there.
Rein sought damages for four animals killed by the railroad's trains. The first claim concerned a cow pastured, with the landowner's permission, on privately owned fenced land through which the railroad ran. About a mile from where the cow was killed, the railroad's right-of-way fence was down. But two private-crossing gates near the place of the collision had also been left open. There was no evidence that the railroad had left those gates open or that the train crew had operated negligently.
The remaining claims involved cattle killed near the cattle guards at the west end of a 3,000-foot siding at Niter. The railroad had removed fencing along the north side of the track for roughly 3,600 feet, asserting that the open area was needed as station grounds. Niter had a gravel platform and limited freight and passenger activity, but no depot at the time of the killings; much of the open area was unsuitable for loading because of the terrain and a borrow pit.
The trial court submitted the claims to the jury, which returned a verdict for Rein. The railroad appealed, arguing that the evidence did not establish liability on any of the four claims.
Issue #1
Whether the evidence supported recovery for the cow killed under the first cause of action.
Holding
No. The evidence did not show by a preponderance that the cow entered through the railroad's defective fence rather than through an open private-crossing gate.
Reasoning
Utah law required an owner of land served by a railroad's private-crossing gate to keep that gate closed when it was not in use. If an animal strayed onto the railroad through an open gate because the owner failed to close it, the railroad was not liable absent negligence in operating the train. Here, there was no evidence of negligent train operation and no evidence that the railroad caused the gates to be left open.
There was no direct evidence showing where the cow entered the right of way. The defective fence was about one mile west of the point of impact, while the open gates were in the immediate vicinity of the collision. Thus, the evidence supported an inference that the cow entered through the open gate at least as strongly as an inference that it entered through the broken fence.
Rein bore the burden to prove an essential fact establishing railroad liability: that the cow entered through a place where the railroad had failed in its fencing duty. When the plaintiff's proof points equally to two possible explanations, one producing liability and the other defeating it, the plaintiff has not carried that burden. The trial court therefore should have directed a verdict for the railroad on this claim.
Issue #2
Whether the railroad could leave the 3,600-foot area at Niter unfenced as reasonably necessary station grounds.
Holding
No. The jury could reasonably find that the railroad left more land unfenced than was reasonably necessary for station purposes.
Reasoning
Although Niter had some characteristics of a station—a gravel platform, occasional freight deliveries, and a few passengers—the evidence showed only minimal traffic. The railroad's own witness could not say that freight averaged even one car per month, and testified that the business was insufficient to justify a station agent.
The physical evidence also undermined the claimed need for a large open area. For more than 2,500 feet of the siding, the terrain made unloading inconvenient, and a borrow pit along approximately 2,000 feet near the west cattle guards made loading or unloading practically impossible. No more than two freight cars had ever been left on the siding at one time, and no evidence suggested future growth in traffic.
On this record, the question whether the railroad had left an excessive amount of its right of way unfenced was properly submitted to the jury. Its finding against the railroad was supported by the evidence.
Issue #3
Whether sufficient evidence showed that the cattle in the second, third, and fourth causes of action entered the railroad right of way through the unfenced area for which the railroad remained responsible.
Holding
Yes. The location of the killings and the physical evidence permitted the jury to find that the cattle entered near the west end of the unfenced siding.
Reasoning
The cattle were killed at, or within a few feet of, the cattle guards at the west end of the open siding. That location itself supported submitting to the jury the question whether the animals had entered the track area near that unfenced point.
The evidence further showed animal tracks on the right of way at and near the west end of the siding soon after the killings, with no tracks found elsewhere on the right of way. The cattle could not have entered from the south because a fence and deep ditch blocked access on that side.
Taken together, this evidence amply supported the jury's verdict on the second, third, and fourth claims. The judgment was affirmed as to those claims.