Menard v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 22146

Background

Menard was severely injured walking through CSX's rail yard in West Springfield in July 2008 when a rail switch forcibly injured his foot and he was subsequently struck by a moving train, leading to severe prior injuries including amputation.
Plaintiffs (Menard and his mother) filed suit in state court in May 2011 for personal injury and loss of consortium; CSX removed to federal court on diversity grounds and moved to dismiss.
The district court held Menard was a trespasser with only a duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, except that a known peril required reasonable care to avoid injury.
Menard sought to amend the complaint to add willful and wanton conduct and negligent-peril theories; the district court deemed the amendments futile and denied them.
On appeal, the First Circuit reviews de novo the district court’s legal framework for trespasser liability and considers the potential for limited discovery to clarify what CSX employees observed between the switch incident and Menard’s fall.
The court vacates the judgment and remands for limited discovery to determine whether any peril-based facts could support a negligence/willful conduct claim; costs on appeal are borne by each side per the court's order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a known peril to a trespasser creates a duty beyond willful conduct	Menard argues CSX knew of his peril and failed to take reasonable steps	CSX contends the trespasser rule limits duty to willful conduct absent known peril	Remanded for discovery to assess peril-known conduct standards
Whether the complaint sufficiently states a claim as to CSX’s awareness of Menard’s presence	Allegations show CSX employees saw Menard entering and failing to warn	There are no facts showing actual knowledge of peril or steps that could have prevented injury	Dismissal affirmed for failure to plead peril-based awareness; remand for discovery may fix shortcomings
Whether limited discovery is appropriate to uncover facts about the interval between switch incident and fall	Discovery could reveal what CSX observed and could have done	Discovery is unlikely to salvage a failure-to-state-claim without solid peril facts	Limited remand for discovery is appropriate
Whether the proposed amendment adding willful and wanton conduct would be futile	Amendment would plead additional facts showing reckless behavior	Futility remains absent showing peril-based awareness or actionable conduct	Await discovery and further proceedings to determine futility
Whether the judgment should be reinstated if further discovery is unhelpful	If discovery fails to reveal peril facts, Menard should not prevail	If no peril-based facts are shown, dismissal should be affirmed	Remand for limited discovery; if no solid peril basis emerges, reinstatement may follow

Key Cases Cited

Pridgen v. Boston Housing Authority, 308 N.E.2d 467 (Mass. 1974) (trespasser peril duty to use reasonable care when known)
McDonald v. Consol. Rail Corp., 502 N.E.2d 521 (Mass. 1987) (foreseeable child trespassers and higher duty of care)
Schofield v. Merrill, 435 N.E.2d 339 (Mass. 1982) (trespasser generally not owed duty beyond refrain from wilful conduct; peril exception)
Montes v. Mass. Bay Transp. Auth., 843 N.E.2d 611 (Mass. 2006) (trespasser on tracks; risk of death or grave injury to prove liability)
Pruell v. Caritas Christi, 678 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2012) (limited discovery and factual inquiry when information may be in defendant control)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must contain sufficient factual matter; not mere conclusory statements)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (sets standard for plausibility in pleading)
Peñalbert-Rosa v. Fortuño-Burset, 631 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2011) (limited discovery when necessary to identify correct defendant)