Utah Supreme Court
What evidence must landowners present to defeat habitual trespasser claims? Connor v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Explained
Summary
Connor, a transient, sustained catastrophic arm injuries when struck by a railcar in Union Pacific’s railyard. The district court granted Union Pacific’s summary judgment motion, finding no duty owed to Connor as a trespasser. The Utah Supreme Court reversed, holding that Union Pacific failed to present evidence supporting its position that the accident location was not an area of constant trespass.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Connor v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a transient named Harry Duncan Connor entered Union Pacific’s Salt Lake City railyard seeking a place to “read and relax.” Connor positioned himself adjacent to a standing railcar where he could not be seen by railroad personnel. Within fifteen minutes, he was struck by a moving railcar during switching operations, resulting in traumatic amputation of both arms. Connor had a blood alcohol level of approximately 0.31 one hour after the accident.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Union Pacific owed Connor a duty of care under the habitual trespasser exception found in Restatement (Second) of Torts § 334. This exception requires: (1) actual or constructive knowledge, (2) that trespassers (3) constantly intrude (4) upon a limited area, and (5) those trespassers may be injured by activities involving risk of death or serious bodily harm. Connor argued that Union Pacific failed to follow internal safety procedures that would have prevented the accident.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment grant, clarifying that the habitual trespasser exception requires all five elements to be satisfied—it is not a general balancing test of burden versus risk. The Court found that Union Pacific failed to meet its burden of proving no genuine issue of material fact existed. Union Pacific made unsupported assertions in its memorandum that the accident location was not frequently trespassed, but provided no affidavits or evidence to support these claims.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that moving parties must present actual evidence, not mere legal arguments, to prevail on summary judgment. Railroad companies and other landowners defending against habitual trespasser claims must submit affidavits demonstrating that specific elements of § 334 are not met. The Court also reinforced that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances.
Case Details
Case Name
Connor v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Citation
1998 UT
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 970438
Date Decided
September 11, 1998
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A landowner must present evidence that at least one element of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 334 is not satisfied to prevail on summary judgment against a trespasser claiming habitual trespasser status.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law on summary judgment
Practice Tip
When moving for summary judgment against trespassers, railroad companies must submit affidavits or other evidence demonstrating that specific elements of Restatement § 334 are not satisfied, rather than relying on unsupported assertions in briefing.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.