PHILADELPHIA – A federal judge has dismissed without prejudice litigation from the sister of a man killed by a passing SEPTA train in Northeast Philadelphia nearly two years ago, a suit which contended that the Amtrak train company had a responsibility to construct protective fencing around the tracks it owned, where the incident occurred.
Lisa King (as Administratrix of the Estate of Paul Richard King) of Philadelphia first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 5 versus National Railroad Passenger Corporation, of Washington, D.C.
“Amtrak owns railroad lines in the eastern United States that are enclosed by fencing. Amtrak is responsible for building, repairing, and maintaining said fencing. On or about May 12, 2022, there was a gaping hole in the fencing protecting the track at the dead end of National Street near 6900 State Road in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On or about May 12, 2022, Mr. King walked through said hole onto the tracks,” the suit stated.
“It is common practice for individuals to walk through said hole in the fence adjacent to the railroad in order to gain access to a nearby residential area. On May 12, 2022, at approximately 8:15 a.m., Septa train No. 705 struck and killed Mr. King. It is alleged, and therefore averred that Amtrak knew or had reason to know that adults were likely to trespass on the train tracks in this area of its land because they erected fencing which would prevent trespassers from walking onto the tracks. Thus, trespassers were anticipated.”
The suit added that Amtrak, “as a possessor of the land on which the incident took place, owed Mr. King a duty of care to avoid serious bodily injury or death.”
“It is also alleged and therefore averred that Amtrak knew or should have known that a complete, well-maintained fence was necessary to prevent adults from trespassing on its train tracks. As such, Amtrak knew or should have known that lack of such a fence would pose an unreasonable risk of death and/or a serious bodily injury to those adults. It is also alleged and therefore averred that Amtrak failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger and risk of death and serious bodily injury or otherwise protect adult trespassers from this danger. It is also alleged and therefore averred that was entirely foreseeable, at the time of the incident in question, that adult trespassers would walk through the hole in Amtrak's fence, onto the train tracks, owned and operated solely by Amtrak, because of the history of similar incidents and there was a lack of fencing or other barriers which would prevent adults from entering onto the tracks,” the suit said.
“As a direct and proximate result of the willful, wanton, negligent, careless and/or reckless conduct of Amtrak, Mr. King died at the scene of the incident, Mr. King’s daily activities and usual life’s pleasures were forever extinguished, Mr. King’s earning capacity and employment opportunities were terminated and the Estate of Paul Richard King incurred liability for emergency medical services, funeral and household expenses.”
Counsel for Amtrak filed a motion to dismiss the case for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted, on Dec. 5. Amtrak argued that because the decedent was a trespasser, it had no duty under Pennsylvania law to construct and/or maintain protective fencing around its own tracks.
Furthermore, under Pennsylvania’s Railroad Civil Immunity statute, Amtrak said possessors of property “have no duty to trespassers except to refrain from causing injury through ‘willful’ or ‘wanton’ conduct.”
“Here, plaintiff alleges decedent entered onto Amtrak’s tracks due to damaged fencing with a large hole adjacent to the tracks. However, Amtrak had no duty or obligation to fence or maintain fencing, and there is no Pennsylvania authority imposing a duty on railroads to maintain the fencing they choose to erect. Therefore, the lack of maintained fencing along Amtrak’s right-of-way is not a basis of recovery for decedent’s incident, and plaintiff’s complaint should be dismissed,” according to the dismissal motion.
“Under Pennsylvania law, courts have consistently held for nearly a century that railroads do not have a legal duty to fence off their rights-of-way or to police and patrol same in order to prevent trespassers from entering upon or crossing the tracks.”
UPDATE
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Gerald J. Pappert granted Amtrak’s motion and dismissed the suit without prejudice, in a Feb. 16 memorandum opinion.
“Amtrak argues, correctly, that King cannot state a negligence claim because Amtrak did not owe Paul a legal duty to maintain the fence. Under the Pennsylvania Railroad Civil Immunity Statute, ‘[A] railroad carrier owes no duty of care to keep its railroad property safe for entry or use by any trespasser who enters upon any railroad property or railroad right-of-way or to give any warning to such trespasser entering or going on that railroad property of a dangerous condition, use or activity thereon.’ The Railroad Civil Immunity Statute defines a trespasser as ‘[A] person who enters onto railroad property without any right, lawful authority or the express consent of the railroad,” Pappert said.
“King argues this rule should not foreclose her claim since she alleges Amtrak acted wantonly by refusing to repair the fence. But this argument fails because it does not change the fact that Amtrak had no duty to erect or maintain the fence. Amtrak cannot have wantonly disregarded a non-existent duty any more than it could have negligently done so. [But] King asserts, for the first time in her brief, that her brother was a licensee rather than a trespasser, and that Amtrak accordingly had a duty to warn him of dangers on the track. She relies on the Permissive Crossing Doctrine.”
According to that doctrine, “A permissive crossing is ‘an express or implied license to pass over the…property of the railroad company.’ There must be ‘a defined footpath leading to a crossing over railway tracks which is being habitually used’ and such a crossing must be ‘restricted to a well-defined location’ and ‘shown to be used frequently, notoriously and continuously by the public.”
“A permissive crossing ‘places upon the railway company the duty of care comparable to that required at a regular crossing.’ According to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, railroads’ duties at permissive crossings consist of ‘(a) keeping a lookout to see if persons are using the permissive crossing, (b) warning users of the train's approach and (c) taking action to stop the train before reaching the permissive crossing if persons are using it,” Pappert stated.
“However, the complaint ‘may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.’ King does not explicitly allege that there was a permissive crossing at the end of National Street, though the Complaint contains some facts that could show one plausibly exists. But the complaint does not allege Paul was a licensee, that Amtrak owed Paul any duty beyond maintaining the fence, that Amtrak breached any such duty or that a breach of that duty caused Paul’s death.”
Pappert then dismissed the complaint without prejudice and permitted the plaintiff to file an amended version by Feb. 26.
For counts of negligence, survival and wrongful death, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial by a jury, punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, a trial by jury, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, recovery of costs including attorney’s fees, and any and all relief to which the plaintiff may be entitled.
The plaintiff is represented by Emeka Igwe of The Igwe Firm, in Philadelphia.
The defendant is represented by Christopher Scott Sheldon and Yuri J. Brunetti of Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, also in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03883
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com