Misplaced Pages

Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
(Redirected from Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout)

1874 United States Supreme Court case
Sioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided January 26, 1874
Full case nameSioux City & Pacific R.R. Co. v. Stout
Citations84 U.S. 657 (more)17 Wall. 657; 21 L. Ed. 745
Court membership
Chief Justice
vacant
Associate Justices
Nathan Clifford · Noah H. Swayne
Samuel F. Miller · David Davis
Stephen J. Field · William Strong
Joseph P. Bradley · Ward Hunt
Case opinion
MajorityHunt, joined by unanimous

Sioux City & Pacific Railroad Co. v. Stout, 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 657 (1873), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that first enunciated the idea that a landowner could be liable for the injuries of a child trespasser.

Background

A railroad turntable similar to this one was thought to breach the duty to children trespassers because it induced them to trespass. The original turntable was torn down in the late 1890s.

On March 29, 1869, a small child was injured by a railroad turntable owned by Sioux City and Pacific Railroad, which was being operated in Blair, Nebraska. The child was playing on the turntable, which injured his/her foot. The father took the company to court in the federal Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska. After a first jury trial failed to reach a decision, a second jury awarded the father $7,500 in 1872. The railroad then sought a writ of error from the Supreme Court.

Decision

A child was injured by a railroad turntable owned by Sioux City and Pacific Railroad, which was being operated in Blair, Nebraska. Sioux City & Pacific Railroad company was held liable, despite the prevailing idea that a landowner was not held liable for injuries to trespassers. Trespassing children were thought to be a special case that required a higher duty of care. This theory of liability came to be known as the "turntable doctrine" and later the attractive nuisance doctrine by the case Keffe v. Milwaukee & St. Paul R.R. Co.

See also

External links

References

  1. Hudson, Manley O. (May 1923). "The Turntable Cases in the Federal Courts". Harvard Law Review. 36 (7): 829–830. doi:10.2307/1328445. JSTOR 1328445.
  2. 84 U.S. at 659.
United States tort law
Intentional Torts
Assault & Battery
Abuse of process
intentional infliction of emotional distress
Trespass to land & Trespass to chattels
Conversion
Privacy, Publicity rights
Tortious interference
DefamationSee United States defamation law
Negligence
Duty of care
Medical malpractice
Wrongful death, Loss of consortium
Common employment
Public Authority, Fireman's rule, Negligence per se
Causation
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Nuisance
Public
Private
Strict liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Product liability
Damages
Joint and several liability
Comparative negligence
Punitive damages
Categories: