Burden of Production

Case: Reid v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad (1911) [CB 584]

Facts: Pl suing RR b/c her cow was killed by a railroad. Pl alleges RR

negligence by either permitting fence to to be broken down and in bad repair, or
for leaving the gate open for the cow to get onto the tracks. However, Pl doesn’t
know exactly which one is the reason why the cow got onto the tracks. Also alleges
RR operated negligently which caused the car to hit the cow. Verdict for
plaintiff; Df appealed.

Issue: Whether the evidence fails to support the verdict because it fails to
show where and under what circumstances the cattle got onto the tracks.

Holding/Reasoning:
○ Negligence in RR operation - no evidence of this
○ Negligence in leaving gate open - not RR liability
§ Statute says that when RR provides gates for private crossings for
the convenience of the landowner, owner is responsible in keeping the gates
closed, not RR.
□ Therefore if cow entered through the open gate, then RR not
liable.
○ Negligence in fences being down - would be negligence if can be proved
that's why cow got onto RR lines
○ Conclusion: There is no evidence of how cow got onto the tracks. The
evidence only shows that it could have equally been either or. Pl had the burden
to establish liability of the Df by the preponderance of the evidence, and she
can't b/c no way she can prove cow went through fence instead of gate.

RULE: Where evidence is intended to support one inference, but instead supports
equally one inference that renders the defendant liable and another that does not,
the plaintiff must fail.

Notes

• Pg 584 - Mrs. Reade

○ Sued RR for negligence. Her problem is that her cow is dead.
○ Governing law - RR has to build fences along to keep from cows crossing.
If fences are down, then cows will be killed. Rancher responsible for making gates
to get in and out, if gate is negligently open, then rancher is responsible.
○ Read said she doesn’t know if cow got out b/c of fence or of gate. But she
says it makes no difference.
§ But this does matter! - statute
○ Burden on plaintiff to suggest cow went over down fence and therefore RR
is liable
§ Why does she have the burden?
□ She's the one that sued. P has burden.
□ Just as burden of pleading, who has more knowledge, and for
policy matters.
® No one should be able to sue RR without showing RR is
liable under substantive law
○ Verdict below for plaintiff cant stand b/c we cant allow b/c no liability
under the law
§ Shouldn’t have gone to jury
□ P didn’t put through any evidence on which jury could find for
her.
○ Judge should have ruled summary judgment for RR b/c P would be unable at
trial to meet the burden of proof