Code Details

CIVIL CODE – CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 – 3273.69] ( Heading of Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988, Ch. 160, Sec. 14. )
PART 3. OBLIGATIONS IMPOSED BY LAW [1708 – 1725] ( Part 3 enacted 1872. )

Exact Statute Text

No person who is injured while getting on, or attempting to get on, a moving locomotive or railroad car, without authority from the owner or operator of the railroad, or who, having gotten on a locomotive or railroad car while in motion without such authority, is injured while so riding or getting off, shall recover any damages from the owner or operator thereof for such injuries unless proximately caused by an intentional act of such owner or operator with knowledge that serious injury is the probable result of such act, or with a wanton and reckless disregard of the probable result of such act.

(Added by Stats. 1971, Ch. 1554.)

Civil Code § 1714.7 Summary

It is important to clarify that the provided statute title, “Civil Code § 1714.7 – Liability for Cell-Phone Use While Driving,” is inconsistent with the actual text of Civil Code § 1714.7. The statute text provided, which governs the content of this article, pertains exclusively to injuries sustained by individuals on or attempting to board moving locomotives or railroad cars without authorization. There is no California Civil Code section 1714.7 that addresses cell-phone use while driving; such laws are typically found in the California Vehicle Code.

Civil Code § 1714.7 significantly limits the ability of a person to recover damages from a railroad owner or operator if they are injured while attempting to get on, getting off, or riding a moving locomotive or railroad car without permission. In such situations, the injured person generally cannot claim damages. The only exceptions are if the injury was directly caused by an *intentional act* of the railroad owner or operator, where they knew serious injury was a probable outcome, or if their actions showed a *wanton and reckless disregard* for the probable harmful results. This means mere negligence on the part of the railroad is not enough for an unauthorized person to recover damages under these specific circumstances.

Purpose of Civil Code § 1714.7

Again, it must be noted that the provided title “Liability for Cell-Phone Use While Driving” does not align with the actual content of Civil Code § 1714.7. The legislative purpose behind the *actual text* of Civil Code § 1714.7 is to protect railroad companies from liability for injuries sustained by individuals who engage in inherently dangerous and unauthorized activities on their property, specifically by attempting to board or disembark from moving trains.

This statute acknowledges the extreme risks associated with unlawfully getting on or off moving trains. By setting a very high bar for recovery – requiring proof of intentional harm or wanton and reckless disregard – the law aims to:

1. Deter unauthorized access: Discourage individuals from engaging in dangerous actions like “train hopping” or illegally boarding trains.
2. Limit railroad liability: Provide a strong defense for railroad owners and operators against personal injury claims arising from such activities, thereby reducing the burden of lawsuits where the injured party was engaged in highly risky, unauthorized conduct.
3. Shift responsibility: Place the primary responsibility for injuries sustained during unauthorized train activities squarely on the individual who chose to undertake those dangerous actions, rather than the railroad, unless the railroad acted with extreme culpability.

This statute prioritizes public safety by discouraging dangerous behavior and recognizing the inherent dangers involved in railway operations.

Real-World Example of Civil Code § 1714.7

Imagine a scenario where a group of teenagers decides to “train surf” on a freight train passing through their town. One teenager, Sarah, successfully jumps onto a moving boxcar but loses her footing and falls, sustaining serious injuries.

Under Civil Code § 1714.7, Sarah would face an incredibly difficult challenge in recovering damages from the railroad company. Simply proving that the train operator was negligent (e.g., failed to blow the horn, or didn’t notice her) would not be enough. For Sarah to recover, she would have to demonstrate one of the following:

• Intentional Act: That the train operator or another railroad employee *intentionally* acted in a way that caused her injury, knowing that serious injury was the probable result. For example, if a conductor saw Sarah clinging to the train and deliberately increased speed to dislodge her, intending to cause harm.
• Wanton and Reckless Disregard: That the railroad owner or operator acted with an extreme lack of care, exhibiting a wanton and reckless disregard for the probable serious injury of Sarah. This would mean their actions were far beyond simple negligence, approaching deliberate indifference to human life or safety in the context of Sarah’s unauthorized presence.

If Sarah could only prove ordinary negligence, the statute would bar her from recovering any damages, holding her responsible for the consequences of her unauthorized and dangerous actions.

Related Statutes

Given that Civil Code § 1714.7 addresses liability for injuries to unauthorized persons on railroad property, related statutes often include:

• Civil Code § 1714 – Liability for Negligent and Willful Acts: This is California’s foundational statute for general negligence, establishing that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their want of ordinary care or skill. Civil Code § 1714.7 acts as a specific exception or limitation to this general rule in the context of unauthorized railroad activities, raising the standard of conduct required for railroad liability.
• Penal Code Sections related to Trespass: Engaging with moving trains without authority often constitutes criminal trespass. While not directly a personal injury statute, the illegality of the act underscores the “without authority” clause in Civil Code § 1714.7 and can impact a plaintiff’s standing or arguments.
• Federal Railroad Safety Act (49 U.S.C. § 20101 et seq.): While Civil Code § 1714.7 is a state law, federal regulations heavily govern railroad operations and safety. In some cases, federal law can preempt state law regarding railroad liability, though CC 1714.7 deals with a specific type of trespasser injury.
• California Civil Code § 846 – Owner’s Duty to Maintain Premises to Persons Entering For Recreational Purpose: This statute generally limits liability for landowners when people enter their property for recreational purposes without permission and are injured, unless there is willful or malicious failure to guard or warn. While CC § 1714.7 is more specific to railroads and moving trains, both statutes aim to limit liability for property owners concerning uninvited or unauthorized entrants.

## Case Law Interpreting Civil Code § 1714.7

One notable case interpreting California Civil Code § 1714.7 is:

• Williams v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 492

This case directly applies Civil Code section 1714.7 to a situation where a plaintiff was injured while attempting to board a moving freight train. The court discussed the specific language of the statute, particularly the requirement to show an “intentional act” or “wanton and reckless disregard” to overcome the liability limitation. The ruling emphasized the high bar set by the statute for unauthorized persons injured in such circumstances.

*You can view this case on Google Scholar:* [Williams v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1985)](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15691079377484542751)

Why Civil Code § 1714.7 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation

Civil Code § 1714.7 is a critical statute in California personal injury litigation, particularly when an injury occurs in the vicinity of railroad operations. It significantly alters the landscape of liability for both plaintiffs and defendants:

• For Plaintiffs (Injured Individuals): This statute imposes an extremely high burden of proof. Unlike typical personal injury claims where a plaintiff might only need to prove negligence, an individual injured while unlawfully on a moving train must prove that the railroad’s conduct was either intentionally harmful or demonstrated “wanton and reckless disregard.” This makes recovering damages exceptionally difficult, as such egregious conduct by a railroad is rare and hard to prove. It essentially acts as a powerful defense for railroads, often preventing recovery for injuries sustained during unauthorized and dangerous acts.
• For Defendants (Railroad Owners/Operators): Civil Code § 1714.7 provides a robust legal shield. It protects railroad companies from claims arising from injuries to trespassers or unauthorized persons on their moving equipment, provided the railroad did not engage in intentional or wantonly reckless behavior. This allows railroads to operate without constant fear of liability from individuals engaging in highly dangerous, unpermitted activities. It’s a key tool for defense attorneys representing railroad companies in such cases, often leading to early dismissal or summary judgment.
• Strategic Impact: The statute forces attorneys to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the injury from the outset. For plaintiffs, it means assessing whether there is any credible evidence of intentional harm or wanton recklessness, rather than just negligence, before pursuing a claim. For defendants, it means establishing that the injured party was unauthorized and that the railroad’s actions did not meet the high threshold for liability under the statute. This statute underscores the severe legal consequences for individuals who disregard safety warnings and legal prohibitions regarding railroad property.