o Exception rivers creeks pond etc o Landowner can be liable for artificial

O exception rivers creeks pond etc o landowner can be

This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 36 pages.

o Exception: rivers, creeks, pond, etc. o Landowner can be liable for artificial conditions of property o ∆ is liable if: He knew or should have known nuisance was there π can’t know or understand the risks to recover If landowner didn’t use reasonable care to prevent accidents from artificial condition, when ordinary person would prevent 11
Image of page 11
Excelsior Wire Rope Co., Ltd . v. Callan: distinguish from Addie b/c D’s servants acted in reckless disregard of P’s welfare. Field was constantly swarming w children who left playground to play games on D’s machinery. D’s servants acted reckless b/c they started machinery without being clear that wire was free from children. D was in breach b/c it was well known to them that machine was going to start when children would be there & expose them to grave danger. Goud v. DeBeve: P fell out window. D was guilty of willful & wanton misconduct in ignoring statutory obligation to replace defective screen after receiving urgent requests from Dodds to do so. Twist v. Winona & St. Peter R.R : There’s no limit to what’s attractive to a curiosity average boy. If owners of property are to be required to guard against it, it would be unsafe for man to own property. Sioux City & Pacific R.R. v. Stout: Court allowed 6 y/o to recover when food caught between fixed rail of roadbed & turning rail of turntable when playing w/ friend. If a reasonable person would’ve ordinary care & D didn’t then find for P. Maalouf v. Swiss Confederation: 12 y/o injured in sledding accident when sled struck guy wire that was used to prop tree. P was a trespasser but attractive nuisance theory applies: nuisance was artificial, relevant element is not what attracts child but rather nuisance itself. Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R : D obtained judgment against 9 y/o who was injured while jumping trains b/c P could appreciate dangers of the risk. Merrill v. Central Maine Power Co : 9 y/o couldn’t recover when he climbed over fence surrounding D’s electrical power. SEE REASONING ABOVE. Carmona v. Hagerman Irrigation Co: P won when 2 y/o drowned--even though impossible to make irrigation ditch inaccessible to trespassing children, irrigations are excluded from attractive nuisance doctrine. Kellser v. Mortenson: homebodies & landowners will be encouraged to minimize or eliminate dangers that trespassing kids may be exposed to on site Ben v. Stanley: P won. swimming pool left unused for three years filled w/ 6 ft of rain & covered in algae could – attractive nuisance to 5 y/o Lemon v. Busey: 5 y/o brought to D church by grandmother who was PT employee. Court said she was licensee & denied recovery after girl fell to her death from a roof. Post v. Lunney: P paid for public tour of D home. P treated as invitee when she tripped on a piece of transparent vinyl on a tour of D home.
Image of page 12
Image of page 13

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture