Bell v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Background

Nicolas Bell alleged that he was injured by a Union Pacific train on or about June 12, 2014, in Fridley, Minnesota. Bell alleged that a collision injured his right foot and led to amputation. He also alleged that the collision occurred near the 6500th block of Main Street Northeast, near parks and churches where children were known to go. According to the complaint, there was no fencing preventing pedestrians from entering the tracks or surrounding areas and no warning signs about the danger.

Bell sued Union Pacific for negligence and for strict liability based on an alleged failure to warn. Union Pacific removed the case from state court to federal court and moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court did not consider affidavits and exhibits the parties submitted with their motion papers because those materials were outside the pleadings and were not properly filed for consideration on the motion.

Child-Trespasser Negligence Claim

Bell labeled his first claim “attractive nuisance,” but the court explained that Minnesota does not recognize that doctrine. The court instead construed the claim as one alleging negligence by a land possessor for harm to a child trespasser. Under Minnesota law, such a claim requires a duty of care, a breach, an injury, and causation. A land possessor may owe a duty to a child trespasser when the requirements of Minnesota’s child-trespasser rule are met.

The court held that Bell did not plausibly allege that Union Pacific was a possessor of the land where he was injured. Ownership was not required. But possession required occupation of the land with an intent to control it. Although Bell’s allegations allowed a reasonable inference that Union Pacific’s train occupied the railroad tracks during the alleged collision, he did not allege that Union Pacific owned the tracks or had assumed responsibility from the property owner for inspecting, maintaining, or remedying conditions on the tracks or surrounding land. The court concluded that the complaint showed only the possibility, not the plausibility, that Union Pacific intended to control the property.

The court therefore granted Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss Bell’s child-trespasser negligence claim. The court did not dismiss the claim based on Union Pacific’s argument that a moving train is an open and obvious danger; it explained that issue generally involves an affirmative defense and may present a factual question not suitable for dismissal at this stage unless the complaint clearly establishes the defense.

Failure-to-Warn Claim

Bell’s second claim was labeled “strict liability,” but the court understood it as a failure-to-warn claim based on strict liability. A failure-to-warn claim requires a duty to warn, an inadequate warning, and a causal connection between the lack of warning and the plaintiff’s injuries. The court noted that a land possessor’s duties to a child trespasser can include warning about a dangerous condition.

The court held that Bell’s failure-to-warn claim failed for the same reason as his negligence claim: he had not plausibly alleged that Union Pacific occupied the property with an intent to control it. The court therefore granted Union Pacific’s motion to dismiss the failure-to-warn claim.

Disposition

The court granted Union Pacific Railroad Company’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed Nicolas Bell’s complaint without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling the claims. Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright directed that judgment be entered accordingly.