Elements Case Chart Professor Eva Hanks

www.swapnotes.com

Page 1 of 5 Fall 2004

CASE Barrett v. Southern Pacific (1891)

JUDGES M D

PROC. HISTORY & OUTCOME

Jury for P for $8,500. D appealing denial of motion for new trial, Cal Sup Court affirmed order and judgment Negligence Case by case

P D
P-8 year old trespassing boys leg amputated from injury on RR TT. D RR co that had an unenclosed and unguarded TT P-father of trespassing 11 yr old boy drowned in unnatural pond, not made by landowner D-LO

ISSUE
Should a LO have a duty to a trespassing child injured on a Railroad turntable kept for business purposes?

HOLDING REASONING
Where a RR has an unguarded and unenclosed TT and knows children are in the area and could lock TT the law will impose duty on RR Care towards children must be increase. Ct saw that TT is dangerous and when landowner has dangerous machinery on his land must take care to guard it. Custom doesnt preclude negligence.

LAW BEFORE
No liability to trespassers

LAW after case is decided

Railroad is liable for an 8 boy who loses leg while playing w/unenclosed turntable. Unsure of what future holds. This holding was exclusive to this case

POLICY
In Barrett, court establishes a principal and not sure what fits under it and discretion w/ future court to determine whether other case fits. Court wants this child and possibly others to recover. Barrett was an exception to the rule, really a new rule. Court wants to salvage rule, fear of slippery slope and protect the landowner. Like 1 trying to draw a line by looking at the nature of the thing If created it, attractive and dang. to

HANKSIAN POLICY

De Haven Beaty McFarland

Principle established that theres discretion for future courts to decide what fits

LIABLE Peters v. Bowman I (1896)

McFarland Henshaw Temple Jury gave verdict for D. P appealed and from judgment and the order denying motion for new trial. SC affirmed.

Should a LO w/a pond on land have duty to trespassing child who drowned in pond?

Where a LO has a pond on land, easily accessible to children he has no duty, because a pond is common

TT rule is an exception to rule only to be used in cases where there is dangerous machinery on land. Pond is not dangerous machinery

The rule is still intact, there has been exception policy change

Established a per se rule: drowning while trespassing equals no liability

NOT LIABLE Peters v. Bowman II (1897)

Beaty Rehearing in bank denied but court addressed error in previous decision.

Verbal gamereally extending the law b/c saying that Barrett could apply to other circumstances.

In City v. Pekin damages were awarded using TT rule for deep pit

There was a factually similar case in which damages were awarded

Owner's liability depends on character of the dangerous and attractive thing.

In that case City of Pekin excavated a deep pit that later filled with water. In this case D had no control over pond.

-No liability if natural and common -Barrett was the exception -cant make pond the inaccessible

Court sets up natural v. artificial and common v. uncommon to determine when landowner has

Elements Case Chart Professor Eva Hanks that filled w/water

www.swapnotes.com

Page 2 of 5 Fall 2004 -Saying should go to the jury duty to trespassing child. Move up a little on pyramid. children, and easy to make safe then he should guard, otherwise should no duty. (pg101) Court wants Take the case kid to recover out of the water rule and b/c invitee and owner apply the old should have law that a landowner may made it safe for him be liable to a kid/lo. trespasser if Exception to theres a trap. the exc.-dont want to overrule Peters, so call it a trap so diff than Barrett Matter of Fact: If trailer is like a common and Turntable: naturalQuestion for directed Verdict and fact finder. no recovery. If like RRgoes to jury. Said its like RR as a Q of fact and jury found liable. Or couldve made a trailer rule Matter of law: COA sees if Like a pond: No sufficient next Question evidence and

Sanchez v. East Contra (1928)

Langdon Richards Shenk

Jury for P for $6,000. D appealing. Judgment affirmed by SC. Canal was the bait for a trap and kid only assumed risk of 3 ft water.

P-parents of 5 yr old boy drowned after falling into a canal w/a hidden syphon Dirrigation co

Should an irrigation company be liable to a child who drowned in their canal w/hidden syphon?

Where a 5 boy drowns after falling in canal w/hidden siphon landowner will be liable b/c it was a concealed danger

Landowner is maintaining something of a trap, concealed danger, artificial peril and gave no warning to others.

If artificial and common no liability. Like a pond or like a turntable?

LIABLE

P invitee, wanted to find for him so took our of the water rule. What about adults? According to law, yes! Why isnt Barrett a trap?

Copfer v. Golden (1955) Appellate Court

Vallee ParkerWood Ashton

Judge as trier of facts (no jury) said trailer is an attractive nuisance -Judge found verdict for P. App Ct affirmed neg is Q of fact once TT is like RR

P-tress 6 yr old girl hurt after playing in lot with a tubular framed trailer D-lot owner

Should a LO have a duty to a 6 girl who is hurt while playing w/tubular framed trailer?

Where a LO has dangerous equipment on land and knows children play will be held liable to trespassing children.

LO has duty to safeguard area from children when he knows items on land are attractive to children who play on the land.

If artificial and uncommon (concealed) there may be liability

C & W show how the lower courts are applying the rules and making cases fit into categories.

LIABLE Wilford v. Little (1956)

Fourt White Doran Judge, as matter of law, granted Ds P-parents of tress4 Child Should a LO who maintains a Where a LO keeps pool on his land and Pools are not attractive nuisances as a Like a pond or like a turntable,

Water casematter of law, so directed

Elements Case Chart Professor Eva Hanks demurrer. P appealing. Cal appellate court affirmed judgment. Matter of Law drowned private swimming pool Dresidential LO w/ swimming pool on land pool on his land have a duty to a trespassing 4 boy who drowned?

www.swapnotes.com

Page 3 of 5 Fall 2004 matter of law or matter of fact If appellate court reviews question of law, they decide what the law and fact is. not what they would have done.. App. Cts are lim. in their reviewing function w/ facts-deference to the truer of fact, but are not w/ law. verdict. But maybe diving board like a RR or a trap? (sanchez had to twist to get out of the rule)

Appellate Court

does not safeguard pool, LO will not be liable for injuries to trespassing children.

matter of law.

NOT LIABLE

Knight v. Kaiser (1957)

McComb Shenk Schauer Spence Traynor Gibson Carter

Judge, as matter of law, granted Ds demurrer. P appealing Judgment was affirmed by Cal Supreme Court Matter of Law M: Like a pool that is ,natural and common -Restrict and limit AND D: too much judicial notice. Particular facts of the case

P-mother of 10 yr old Boy suffocated in sandpile D-gravel business

Should a LO who has a commercial sand pile on his land have a duty to 10 boy who is asphyxiated while playing in sand pile?

Where a commercial landowner who maintains a commercial amount of sand in sandpile, and does not enclose land LO will have no liability to death of 10 boy.

Sand is common like water. No new dangers were added. Ct wants to limit attractive nuisance cases so fitting this case into 1 of the 2 categories.

Fitting dangers into what the courts have held: 2 categories

A sand pile is not an attractive nuisance; sandpile is natural and common as is water. Extends the water rule to include common and natural.

Judicial Notice: sand piles as a matter of law Restrict Attractive nuisance doctrine. McComb: Per Se Rule v Traynor: Standards living law for changing world

NOT LIABLE Reynolds v. Wilson (1958)

Shenk Gibson Carter Traynor Spence Jury for P for $50,000. D made motion for JNOV motion was P-tress 2 years 3 mo old -cerebral palsy Should a LO have a duty to a child who was Where a LO maintains a pool partially filled with water, leaves Debris in pool made a new danger. Debris in pool acted as a trap, there was a Common and uncommon. Take it out of the water rule b/c of maintenance and insist that Private swimming pool is not attractive nuisance as

Pivotal-4-3 and Traynor on dissent. To get the just decision in torts, need to look at the facts. Rules: predict., efficiency, and stability but also want fairness, justness, and law that responds to the changing world. Standards are flexible. Eliminates artific v natural Theyre still holding onto their AND rule, but its really disappearing.

Elements Case Chart Professor Eva Hanks Schauer McComb denied and Supreme Court affirmed the denial. M said still water rule, but maintenance D said common! Water rule says no liability! symptoms by near drowning Dresidential LO w/ pool severely injured after falling into partially drained pool in which there were decayed leaves and algae?

www.swapnotes.com

Page 4 of 5 Fall 2004 there is still a rule. Theyre going by the facts of the case. matter of law, but manner of its maintenance and use can be determined. On case by case basis to impose duty on landowner toward children of tender years Court is using standards: how hard to prevent, understanding of child, landowner knew children were attracted to object. Court moved away from rules. Shenk wrote it not Traynor so that not too extreme.

and algae and a 2 boy is injured after falling in pool while trespassing LO is liable.

concealed danger not obvious to children.

LIABLE Garcia v. Soogian (1959)

Gibson Shenk Traynor Peters Spence Schauer McComb (Concur and dissent) Trial judge judgment in favor of plaintiff. Reversed by California supreme court. M: common does not equal obvious, can it be understood by child? D: order for D Should be Knightcommon and obvious so no liability Pintelligent tress 12 8 mths yr old girl hurt after jumping over uncovered stacks of building panels D-business lot owner Should a LO who keeps uncovered glass panels on unenclosed land have a duty to 12 & 8mth girl injured by panels while trespassing? Where a 12yr 8mth girl trespasses on LO land and is injured by panels LO will not be held liable. No evidence that child was less than the average intelligence. Ct concerned w/her age, chances were slight that someone her age would be injured by the panels. Rules but move towards case by case. Shift to child understanding: youth and Capacity of each child Shift away from categories to case by case Based on STANDARDS: Negligence Bad for landowners b/c now theres uncertainty about what have to foresee and protect against

Its now bad for stability, but good for justice *Factors: understanding of kid, cost to prevent, commonness, obvious to kid and D

NOT LIABLE King v. Lennen (1959)

Gibson Traynor Peters White Spence Schauer D's demurrer to complaint was sustained w/out leave to amend. P appealed and judgment was P-1 yr old boy invitee drowned in pool while in Should a LO who keeps a pool on his property have duty Where a LO maintains a pool on his land and 1 boy drowns in pool, then LO Child was 1 can not understand the dangers of a pool, the conditions of the pool, also no Case by case: with standards of reasonableness Utility Capacity of What court said v Negligence is what court did. the Said he was STANDARD invitee but treated him as a trespasser. What is precedent? Said or did -invitee

Elements Case Chart Professor Eva Hanks McComb reversed by Cal Sup Court. M: Cont-neg.= trier of fact -1.5 year old cant understand dangers of water D: Would affirm b/c previous decisions care of defendants daughter who acted as sitter Dresidential LO w/ pool to a 1 boy who drowns in pool after being brought to house by daughter of LO as sitter?

www.swapnotes.com

Page 5 of 5 Fall 2004 child Ease of prevention

may be liable to child as a matter of fact.

fence or safeguards are enough for a trier of fact to realize D should have been aware boy would come into contact w/pool

Overrules the water rule!

LIABLE