The Engvall court cited Crane v. Cedar Rapids I.C. Ry., 395 U.S. 164, 89 S.Ct. 1706, 23 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969), in support of the proposition that a party suing for violation of the LIA must do so under a common law action. Engvall, 632 N.W.2d at 568; see also Steffey v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 498 N.W.2d 304, 307 (Minn.Ct.App. 1993). Crane, however, addresses only causes of action under the SAA, and does not mention the LIA.
This is normally a question for the jury. Steffey v. Soo Line R.R., 498 N.W.2d 304, 308 (Minn.App. 1993), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 1993).
"Negligence is the breach of a legal duty." Steffey v. Soo Line R. Co., 498 N.W.2d 304, 307 (Minn.Ct.App.1993)"Generally, a defendant's duty to a plaintiff is a threshold question because in the absence of a legal duty, the negligence claim fails." Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn.2011) (quotations and alterations omitted).
Based on this testimony, the Court of Appeals overturned the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, holding that there was no evidence from which the jury could have found that the railroad failed to use reasonable care after discovering the trespasser's peril. Id. at 751; see also Steffey v. Soo Line R.R., 498 N.W.2d 304, 308-09 (Minn. App. 1993) (affirming summary judgment in favor of railroad where undisputed evidence showed that crew applied train's brakes as soon as they recognized that object on track was a person but could not stop the train in time to prevent from running over trespasser who was lying across railroad's track). As in Green, the undisputed facts in the present case demonstrate that there is no evidence from which the jury could find that Norfolk Southern negligently failed to apply the train's brakes to avoid a collision after discovering Mr. Owens' presence on the track.
However, this merely means that the LIA and the SAA do not provide statutory causes of action, and that a party suing for violation of either act must do so under a common law action. See Crane v. Cedar Rapids Iowa City Ry., 395 U.S. 164, 166 (1969) (noting that the SAA "did not create a federal cause of action for either employees or nonemployees seeking damages for injuries resulting from a railroad's violation of the Act" and that, although Congress subsequently provided employees with such a cause of action by enacting the FELA, "the nonemployee must look for his remedy to a common law action in tort"); Fairport, Painesville E. R.R. v. Meredith, 292 U.S. 589, 596-97 (1934) (automobile driver injured in collision with train at railroad crossing may recover in state common law action against railroad based on SAA violation); Steffey v. Soo Line R.R., 498 N.W.2d 304, 307 (Minn.App.) (intoxicated trespasser may assert state common law claim against railroad based on LIA violation), rev. denied (Minn. May 28, 1993).
Hudson v. Snyder Body, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 149, 157 (Minn. 1982). The existence of a legal duty may be imposed by either the common law or a statute, Steffey v. Soo Line R.R., 498 N.W.2d 304, 307 (Minn.App. 1993), review denied (Minn. May 28, 1993), and is a question of law for the court to determine.
Absent compelling evidence, this is a jury question. See Steffey v. Soo Line R.R., 498 N.W.2d 304, 308 (Minn.App. 1993), review denied (Minn. May 28, 1993).