8th Circuit Court of Appeals rejects city of Carthage's claim against Union Pacific Railroad

The U. S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed the district court's rejection of the city of Carthage's lawsuit against Union Pacific Railroad for its failure to maintain bridges on bridges on Oak Street, Sycamore Street, Walnut Street and High Street.

The court's opinion said the lower court was correct in its reasoning that the city did not file the lawsuit before the five-year statute of limitations ran out.

The basis for the lawsuit was described in the opinion.

In the late 1800s, the City of Carthage, by seven ordinances, granted Missouri Pacific Railway Company (“MPRC”) the right to “construct and keep in repair” several bridges and crossings. The ordinances required MPRC to, in the words of one ordinance, “keep all such crossings and approaches in good condition for the safe and convenient passage of animals, teams and persons.” In 1990, UP acquired MPRC. 

By the early 2000s, some of the bridges had deteriorated and become unsafe for use. In 2002, the Missouri Department of Transportation informed the City that the bridges needed to be repaired. 

In 2011, the City and UP met to discuss repairing the bridges. UP did not make any repairs. On February 15, 2013, the City wrote UP demanding repair of the bridges as required by the ordinances.

More than five years later, on January 2, 2019, the City sued UP seeking specific performance and a declaratory judgment that it must make the repairs. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court granted UP’s motion, ruling that the City’s breach-of-contract claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations and that the continuing wrong rule did not preserve the claim.

Carthage's attorneys argued that the court should have used a different Missouri law, the "continuing wrong rule" that sets the statute of limitations at 10 years. The appellate court opinion said that law did not apply in this case because there was no continuing wrong. Union Pacific did nothing at all.

Because UP did not engage in an affirmative act during the limitations period, the failure to maintain here does not create a fresh injury from day to day.

After the damage was sustained and the City was on notice of an actionable injury, it waited more than five years to sue UP. The continuing wrong rule does not apply here. The City’s claim is barred by the five-year statute of limitations. The district court properly entered summary judgment.