Does Utah's railroad trespasser statute incorporate the frequent trespasser doctrine? Lopez v. Union Pacific Railroad Explained

In Lopez v. Union Pacific Railroad, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether Utah Code Ann. § 56-1-18.5’s restrictions on trespasser recovery incorporate common law exceptions for frequent trespassers. The case demonstrates how statutory interpretation must account for established common law principles.

Background and Facts

Lopez was a temporary worker at an industrial plant serviced by railroad spur tracks. Workers habitually crossed between parked railroad cars to reach parking lots when the cars blocked access. Union Pacific knew of this practice, with safety committee minutes noting that employees were “crossing between rail cars while cars are being switched.” When Lopez attempted to cross between cars during a switching operation, he was struck and both legs were amputated. The trial court granted summary judgment for Union Pacific under Utah Code Ann. § 56-1-18.5, which generally bars recovery by unauthorized persons on railroad equipment.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Utah Code Ann. § 56-1-18.5(2) requires actual knowledge of a specific person’s presence or whether knowledge of habitual trespassing suffices under the frequent trespasser doctrine. Lopez argued he had implied authority to cross and that the railroad owed him a duty under common law principles governing frequent trespassers.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute incorporates the common law frequent trespasser exception from Restatement (Second) of Torts § 334. The court noted that legislative history indicated the statute was intended to “codify existing law” rather than change it. Under this doctrine, a landowner who knows trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area owes them a duty of reasonable care during activities involving risk of death or serious bodily harm. The court found Lopez presented a prima facie case based on evidence that workers habitually crossed between cars and Union Pacific knew of this practice.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly affects railroad injury litigation in Utah by expanding potential liability beyond cases involving actual knowledge of specific individuals. Practitioners must examine whether clients can establish habitual trespassing patterns and the defendant’s knowledge thereof. The ruling also demonstrates the importance of legislative history in statutory interpretation when determining whether statutes modify or codify existing common law.