This case arises from a tragic accident in Hearne, Texas, where a minor named T.T. attempted to cross railroad tracks between two stopped freight cars owned by Union Pacific Railroad Company. Video footage shows that after the train stopped briefly due to a signal, T.T. and a friend approached the train to cross. As T.T. was moving between the cars, the train lurched forward due to slack action, causing T.T. to fall onto the tracks and suffer the amputation of his leg. T.T. admitted he knew that going through trains could be dangerous. His mother, Anetrys Moten, sued Union Pacific for negligence, gross negligence, and premises liability. The district court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific, ruling that the railroad tracks and the moving train constituted open and obvious dangers under Texas law, meaning the company owed no duty to warn or make the area safe. Moten appealed, arguing the court should have applied a child standard of care and that the slack action was a hidden danger.
The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether Union Pacific owed a legal duty to T.T. The court first clarified that under Texas law, a plaintiff cannot maintain both a general negligence claim and a premises liability claim for the same injury; the claim must be categorized based on whether the injury resulted from an activity or a condition of the property. The court agreed with the district court that this case sounded in premises liability because the injury was caused by the condition of the train and tracks. To succeed on a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must prove the defendant had knowledge of a condition posing an unreasonable risk and failed to exercise reasonable care. However, Texas law establishes that a landowner has no duty to warn of hazards that are open and obvious. The court applied an objective test to determine if the danger was obvious, asking what a reasonably prudent person would have known under similar circumstances. The court found that trains and railroad tracks are long recognized as obvious sources of danger. Furthermore, the evidence showed the train was moving mere moments before the accident, and T.T. had previously experienced a train moving while he was crossing, demonstrating his actual awareness of the risk. The court rejected the argument that slack action was a hidden danger, noting that the general risk of a train moving was foreseeable even if the specific mechanics were not. Because the danger was open and obvious, Union Pacific owed no duty to warn or protect T.T., regardless of whether he was a licensee or trespasser. Consequently, the negligence claim failed, and the gross negligence claim failed as well, since gross negligence liability is contingent on the existence of a legal duty.
The decision reinforces the strict application of the open and obvious danger doctrine in Texas premises liability cases involving railroad tracks. It clarifies that even if a specific mechanism like slack action causes the injury, the general danger of a moving train is considered obvious, absolving the railroad of a duty to warn. The ruling affirms that summary judgment is appropriate when a plaintiff is aware of the danger or when a reasonable person would be, effectively limiting liability for injuries sustained by trespassers or children on active railroad property.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download