Seronde v. Bnsf
1 CA-CV 16-0385
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- Jean Seronde drove off I-40 onto a gravel road to bypass traffic, crossed a BNSF railroad crossing (marked with a STOP and crossbuck) and later returned along a railroad right-of-way with other vehicles.
- As Jean reapproached the crossing without stopping, a BNSF train that had sounded its horn collided with his car; Jean was injured and his mother Ella died.
- Plaintiffs (Jean and Ella’s family) sued BNSF for negligence, alleging inadequate markings and warning devices at the crossing; earlier appeal held federal law preempted claims based on the train’s speed but remanded the signage/warning claim.
- On remand BNSF moved for summary judgment, arguing Jean and Ella were trespassers and BNSF’s duty was only to avoid willful or wanton injury, which it did not breach.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for BNSF; the court of appeals affirms, holding no triable issue that BNSF owed a higher duty or acted willfully/wantonly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Jean and Ella were trespassers or invitees/licensees | Seronde: BNSF knew or acquiesced to public use of the crossing or invited use by building/signing it, so plaintiffs were invitees entitled to reasonable care | BNSF: Crossing was private (access for NPS and neighbor); plaintiffs were trespassers, so duty limited | Held: Plaintiffs were trespassers as a matter of law; no evidence of continuous public use or invitation |
| Whether knowledge of trespassers imposed reasonable-care duty (Restatement §334 style) | Seronde: BNSF knew trespassers constantly intruded and acquiesced, creating higher duty | BNSF: No evidence of constant public intrusion; DOT form and engineer testimony insufficient | Held: No genuine dispute BNSF lacked notice of persistent public use; thus no heightened duty |
| Whether placement of STOP/crossbuck signs constituted an invitation | Seronde: Using public-style signage invited public use and imposed reasonable-care duty | BNSF: Signs installed for limited authorized uses; no evidence they were intended to open crossing to public | Held: Signage alone, without open public use or reliance, did not convert trespassers to invitees |
| Whether BNSF breached duty (willful/wanton) by failing to restrict or warn further | Seronde: Failure to post ‘no trespassing,’ gate, lights, or different warnings was negligent | BNSF: Crew sounded horn and applied emergency braking; trespasser duty is limited and was not breached | Held: No evidence of willful or wanton conduct; summary judgment for BNSF affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gipson v. Kasey, 214 Ariz. 141 (Ariz. 2007) (elements and analysis of negligence duty and breach)
- Webster v. Culbertson, 158 Ariz. 159 (Ariz. 1988) (trespasser duty limited to avoiding willful or wanton injury)
- Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Bd., 146 Ariz. 352 (Ariz. 1985) (invitee duty: reasonable care to make premises safe)
- Olsen v. Macy, 86 Ariz. 72 (Ariz. 1959) (public, open use required to convert private land to invitee status)
- DeElena v. S. Pac. Co., 121 Ariz. 563 (Ariz. 1979) (definition of wanton conduct requiring heightened risk and probability of harm)
- Barnhizer v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 123 Ariz. 253 (Ariz. 1979) (reiterating limited duty to trespassers)
- Canion v. S. Pac. Co., 52 Ariz. 245 (Ariz. 1938) (railroad tracks as inherent warning; duty to look and listen)