Page v. Amtrak, Inc., 16-1325U

On April 16, 2012, Sean Page was struck and killed by Amtrak's Downeaster while crossing railroad tracks in Biddeford, Maine.
Valerie Page, decedent's wife and personal representative, sued Amtrak for wrongful death alleging negligence and related claims.
Amtrak moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty to the decedent because people have no right to be on railroad tracks except by railroad conveyance and trains are not required to stop for pedestrians at undesignated crossings.
The district court granted summary judgment for Amtrak, concluding Amtrak owed no duty to the pedestrian; Page appealed.
The First Circuit affirmed, holding that under Maine law Amtrak did not owe a duty to a person without a right to be on the tracks and that longstanding Maine precedent places the duty to avoid trains on the traveler at crossings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amtrak owed a duty of care to a pedestrian on/near tracks	Page argued the decedent had a superior right to use the premises regardless of ownership and that Amtrak owed a duty	Amtrak argued Maine law forbids standing or walking on tracks without right and thus it owed no duty	Court held Amtrak owed no duty because §7007 bars being on tracks without right; plaintiff showed no right
Whether ownership of the premises was required to invoke statutory prohibition	Page argued §7007 requires Amtrak to prove ownership before invoking the prohibition	Amtrak argued §7007 does not require proof of ownership to preclude pedestrian rights	Court held ownership not required; statute bars pedestrian access independent of ownership proof
Whether Amtrak had duty to stop or warn for pedestrians at undesignated crossings	Page argued Amtrak created hazards and had a duty to warn/slow/stop	Amtrak relied on Maine cases that trains have right-of-way and are not required to stop for pedestrians	Court held longstanding Maine precedent places responsibility on traveler; Amtrak not obligated to stop or slow for pedestrians at undesignated crossings
Whether plaintiff could raise implied-in-invitee theory on appeal	Page raised implied-invitee theory on appeal	Amtrak opposed consideration as not litigated below	Court declined to address implied-invitee because it was not raised in district court

Bell ex rel. Bell v. Dawson, 82 A.3d 827 (Me. 2013) (duty of care is threshold element in negligence)
Smith v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 32 A. 967 (Me. 1895) (train has preference and right of way; traveler must wait)
Hesseltine v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 154 A. 264 (Me. 1931) (traveler should not venture onto track until safe)
Ham v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 116 A. 261 (Me. 1922) (duty of traveler to wait for train)
Copp v. Me. Cent. R.R. Co., 62 A. 735 (Me. 1905) (engineers not required to stop/decrease speed every time a person is on track)
Hooper v. Bos. & Me. R.R. Co., 17 A. 64 (Me. 1889) (collision at crossing is prima facie evidence of traveler negligence)
In re Brady-Zell, 756 F.3d 69 (1st Cir. 2014) (stay of appellate commentary when lower court thoroughly explains correct result)
McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1991) (appellate courts generally do not consider issues not raised in the district court)