Ryals v.

United States Steel Corporation

FACTS: The plaintiff and the decedent trespass on the defendant’s land for the purpose of
stripping out copper, brass, and other salvageable metal. Upon arriving on the lots, they noticed
the base of the structure to be partially stripped; found a rusty metal warning sign, detached
metals lying on the ground, dangling wires, garbage in and around the fenced area and wild
vegetation growing around the fence; and they found the gate leading to the switch rack to be
wide open. The decedent, one of the trespasser contacted with a 44,000 volt copper line; he
suffered a third degree burns over 95% of his body and died several days later.
The plaintiff initially filed a negligence claim against the defendant for decedent’s death
by negligently and wantonly failing to secure the switch rack. The plaintiff later withdrew the
complaint and the trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant on the wantonness
claim. The plaintiff appealed the summary judgment.

ISSUE: Whether the defendant owes a duty to trespassers who wrongfully entered his land for
the purpose of committing a crime.

RULE: A landowner owes a duty to trespassers who wrongfully comes into his land not to
intentionally, recklessly or wantonly injure them and the court define wanton as conscious act or
omission of some duty under the knowledge of the existing conditions and conscious that from
the omission of such duty injury will likely or probably result.

APPLICATION: Here, the defendant did not intentionally, recklessly or wantonly injure the
plaintiff even though the plaintiff wrongfully trespassed on his land for the purpose of
committing a crime. Whether the switch rack was wantonly left open is contested by the fact that
the switch rack was surrounded by a chain link fenced topped with barbed wire, and one sign
warning of electrical danger. Given the intention of the plaintiff, they would have disregarded the
any obvious danger presented on the site. Public Policy justification.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the defendant did not intentionally breach its duty to the
trespassers, who at the time was on the defendant’s site to commit a crime.

Merrill v. Central Maine Power Company

FACTS: The plaintiff, a nine years old girl entered the defendant’s land to fish from the pond
located in the defendant’s lot. After catching an eel in the river decided to walk to the
defendant’s electrical sub-station, climbed the fence and placed the eel on a live wire. The
plaintiff was shocked and suffered severe burns.
The plaintiff brought a cause of action under the attractive nuisance doctrine against the
defendant. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that: (1) the
plaintiff appreciated the risk (2) electrical sub-station as a matter of law is not attractive
nuisance. Plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE: Whether the defendant’s electrical sub-station is an attractive nuisance that should have
been reasonably foreseen by the defendant as an unreasonable risk of harm to trespassers in this
case a child trying to cooked her eel on a live wire and whether the child appreciated the risk at
the time of the accident

RULE: To determine whether an artificial condition is an attractive nuisance capable of causing

physical harm to children trespassing on the land, the courts look at Restatement of Torts §399:
Conditions of an attractive nuisance:
a. Possessor has reason to know that children likely to trespass;
b. Possessor knows condition will involve an unreasonable risk to kids;
c. Children do not realize the risk involved;
d. Utility of maintaining the condition and burden of eliminating the
danger are slight
e. Possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate danger.

APPLICATION: Here, the plaintiff’s injuries not caused by an attractive nuisance b/c live wire
are not recognizable attractive nuisances. Had the defendant create an attractive nuisance on his
property, he must exercise a higher duty of care in securing the A.N. Also the other prong asks
whether the child appreciate the risk of the harm at the time of the accident. In this case, the
plaintiff stated that he knew the purpose of the fence surrounding the sub-station was to keep
people out (2) that electricity could burn and hurt him; (3) that he was careful not to touch the
wire himself; and (4) that what he did was a dumb idea. All this factual testimonies lead to a
conclusion as to the plaintiff’s appreciation of the risk at the time of the accident.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the summary judgment should be granted in light of the finding that
the plaintiff appreciated the risk posed by the electrical sub-station.

North Hardin Developers, Inc v. Corkran

FACTS: The defendant owned a 27 acre farm located in a semi rural area adjoined by two
subdivisions. A few lots in the subdivision are adjacent to the farm which was enclosed with a
barb wire fence. A large number of children are known to live within the vicinity of the farm and
it known to the owner of the land that children tend to trespass on the farm, even though notices
were posted warning trespassers. The plaintiff climbed through the barb wire surrounding the
farm after been dared by other children to touch the horse from behind, the non-violent horse
struck the plaintiff with his hind leg causing the plaintiff to be tragically injured.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the landowner, but the court of appeals
reversed.

ISSUE: Whether horses or domesticated livestock, without vicious propensities, kept on a farm
which is close proximity to two subdivisions should be considered as an attractive nuisance
denying the defendant protection under the KY statutes.

RULE: Still adhering to the attractive nuisance doctrine regarding the classification of
domesticate animal, following the majority view, ordinary domesticated animals do not
constitute an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children as required by the
attractive nuisance doctrine and therefore cannot have been reasonably foreseen by the
defendant.

APPLICATION: Here, first of all, the horses were kept within a closed fence surrounded by
barb wire, a sign was also posted to warn off trespassers and considering the precautions the
defendant has taken but unsuccessful to prevent trespassers by the children, the defendant has
exercise a high duty of care and second, in regards to whether domesticated animals are
attractive nuisance, the court held that they are not. Considering all the factual circumstances in
the case, the defendant is not required to exercise a higher duty of care requires in regards to
children as ascertain by the attractive nuisance doctrine b/c the domesticate animals are not A.N.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment.

Knorpp v. Hale

FACTS: The plaintiff’s has been dating the defendant daughter for a year, had moved to be
closer to her, and had been known to spent a great deal at the house. The defendants were
planning a bonfire New Years Eve party and discussed cutting down the pine tree located in a
pasture near their house. The decedent had been present during the discussion and on this
particular day of the accident came into the defendant’s house grab the chainsaw and started
cutting the tree. After forty-five minutes, the tree fell in an unexpected direction and landed on
the decedent killing him
The trial court granted the defendant motion’s for a directed verdict and ruled as a matter
of law that the decedent was a licensee and no evidence presented shown the defendant had been
negligent under the applicable standard of a licensee

ISSUE: Whether the decedent was a invitee rather than a licensee when the decedent is a regular
visitor to the house, had his own key to the house and his treated as by the defendant as their son-
in-law.

RULE: A landowner owes a duty to exercise ordinary care to protect an invitee from risks of
which the owner is actually aware and those risks of which the owner should be aware after
reasonable inspection. To recover, P, as invitee, must prove landowner liable when:
i. Had actual/constructive knowledge of some condition on premises
ii. Condition posed unreasonable risk of harm
iii. Landowner didn’t exercise reasonable care to reduce/eliminate risk
iv. Landowner’s failure to use care proximately caused P’s injuries
A landowner owes a duty to a licensee by not injuring him willful, wanton or gross negligent
conduct, and that the owner use ordinary care to either warn a licensee of, or to make reasonable
safe, a dangerous condition of which the owner is aware and the licensee is not. To recover, P, as
invitee, must prove landowner liable when:
v. Had actual/constructive knowledge of some condition on premises
vi. Condition posed unreasonable risk of harm
vii. Landowner didn’t exercise reasonable care to reduce/eliminate risk
viii.Landowner’s failure to use care proximately caused P’s injuries

APPLICATION: Here, first, the decedent is not an invitee, which would have required the
defendant to exercise ordinary care to warn the decedent of risks the defendant is aware of or
should be aware off after inspection b/c under Texas, a social guest is classified as a licensee and
as stated by the rule, the defendant duty owe to a licensee is not to injure him by willful, wanton,
or gross negligence. Second, since the decedent is classified as a licensee, there is the language
of mutual benefit or mutual advantage in view of a sort of business venture between the decedent
and the defendant. The plaintiff contended that, the decedent had been asked by the defendant if
he’s willing to participate in the cutting of the tree. The court held that the decedent is a social
guest of the defendant, was not expected to get pay or that he volunteered to help with the tree as
supposed to being asked, no business relationship existed between the parties and the land was
not open to the public. Third, the plaintiff also contended that the defendant was aware of the
danger in cutting down the tree and had failed to warn the decedent. The court held that such
warning is only applicable to an invitee and since the decedent is not one it does not apply. If it
does apply the argument fails on grounds that the decedent was the one that was aware of the
danger of cutting down trees considering his experience working with trees and that the tree
itself was not dangerous until the decedent started cutting it.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, there was nothing the defendant could have warn the decedent
about b/c the dangerous condition was not created until the decedent created one, no duty to
warn.
Richardson v. The Commodore, Inc

FACTS: The plaintiff was at the defendant’s business establishment as a customer shooting pool
at the bar when portion of the ceiling collapse, and fell on the plaintiff resulting in his injuries.
Record shows the defendant’s house of establishment was built in the 1913 and the defendant
had hired a contractor to repair portions of the plaster ceiling upon acquiring the building in
1982. A couple of years later the defendant installed a drop ceiling on the floor of the building to
improve the efficiency of heating and cooling the premises. Between 1985 and the date of the
accident, the defendant did not inspect the ceiling, or were aware of any problems with the
ceilings and made no repairs. Plaintiff was struck by a portion of the original ceiling and
according to the contractor who testified, the ceiling collapse due to its age, and the effect, over
time, of vibration from heavy traffic on the adjoining street and had inspect the remainder of the
building by climbing a ladder and using a flashlight to view whether the plaster was sagging in
any areas.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, holding there
was no evidence the defendant knew or should have knew about the dangerous condition of the
plaster ceiling. Plaintiff appealed and the court of appeals affirmed the district court decision.

ISSUE: Whether the plaintiff constitute an invitee and if such the defendant should know or
exercise reasonable care in discovering the dangerous condition of the ceiling prior to failing on
the plaintiff.

RULE: A possessor of land is liable to an invitee for injuries sustained on his premises if he
i. had actual/constructive knowledge of some condition on premises and
should realize the condition posed unreasonable risk of harm
ii. didn’t exercise reasonable care to reduce/eliminate risk
iii. fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them from danger

APPLICATION: Here, the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in regards to inspection
of the building which is an applicable standard of an invitee. Considering the age of the ceiling
the ceiling collapses due to its age, and the effect, over time, of vibration from heavy traffic on
the adjoining street. The defendant should have realized the impending doom of the ceiling and
should have inspect it seeing how the inspection was not an onerous or impractical which can be
done by getting a ladder and a flashlight and inspect if there was an sagging areas in the ceiling
as the contractor has done. Given the knowledge presented in light of how the accident came
about, a jury could make an inference as whether reasonable care could have been exercise
especially since the establishment is business oriented which required a higher standard of care
compare to that of a private property owner. And, also the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant
creates the condition that lead to the dangerous condition is not plausible b/c the defendant
merely installed a drop ceiling and no records indicated the drop ceiling contributed to the
collapse of the ceiling

CONCLUSION: Therefore, material issue of disputed fact exists as to whether reasonable care
warranted an inspection and whether the inspection would have alert the defendant to the
dangerous condition. The trial court erred when he stated the defendant is entitling to judgment
as a matter of law. Court vacated the court of appeals decision affirming the district court,
reverse the decision of the district court, and remand the case for further proceedings.