This is crap, and I can't believe the judge applied the law in this way. Is he saying that if there had never been a previous case of trespassing within a mile of this occurrence then Amtrak/NS would not have been at fault?
======================
Under Pennsylvania law, the duty owed by a possessor of land to a trespasser is to
refrain from willfully and wantonly injuring the trespasser.
In this case, the defendants intentionally parked the freight cars, intending to leave
them for several nights, under energized power lines. Furthermore, Amtrak knows of the
danger posed by humans coming in contact with catenary wires and trains their employees
accordingly. Amtrak also knows that the area within a mile in each direction of the site of
the accident had been trespassed sixty-nine (69) times during the three years before the
accident. Of these trespasses, at least thirty-three (33) involved juveniles, with at least
seventy-eight (78) juveniles mentioned. Although the defendants did not have a duty to
anticipate the plaintiffs trespassing onto the Amtrak right of way and climbing to the top
of the train, there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the act of parking the freight
cars on that particular tail track would lead a reasonable person to conclude that a high
probability of harm existed.
