Alvin v. Simpson
195 Mich. App. 418, 491 N.W.2d 604 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who enters another's fenced property without express or implied permission, and with knowledge that they are trespassing, is a trespasser and not a licensee. Therefore, they are not considered 'lawfully on the property' for the purposes of holding a dog owner strictly liable under Michigan's dog-bite statute.
Facts:
- Defendants, the Simpsons, owned a home with a backyard enclosed by a fence.
- Ten-year-old Bradley Alvin was playing with friends at the Hoilman residence, which was next door to the Simpsons' property.
- At the request of a playmate, Bradley climbed the fence and entered the Simpsons' backyard to retrieve a ball.
- Bradley acknowledged in his deposition that he knew he did not have permission from the Simpsons to be on their property.
- As Bradley was climbing back over the fence to leave the yard, the Simpsons' dog bit him on the leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, the Alvins, filed a lawsuit against defendants, the Simpsons, in a Michigan circuit court (trial court) under the state's dog-bite statute.
- Defendants filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that Bradley Alvin was a trespasser and not lawfully on their property as required by the statute.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion, concluding as a matter of law that Bradley was a trespasser.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the trial court's order to the Michigan Court of Appeals, where the defendants were appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a child who climbs over a fence into a neighbor's yard to retrieve a ball, without the owner's permission and with knowledge that he is trespassing, qualify as a licensee 'lawfully on the property' under Michigan's dog-bite statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A child who knowingly enters a fenced-in property without permission is a trespasser, not a licensee, and is therefore not lawfully on the property for the purposes of Michigan's dog-bite statute. The statute's strict liability protection applies only to individuals who are on the property as an invitee or licensee. A licensee requires either express or implied permission. Implied permission may arise where an owner acquiesces in a known, customary use of the property by the public, but no such evidence was presented here regarding Bradley. To the contrary, Bradley's own deposition showed he knew he was trespassing. The fact that the neighbors' children had received permission on prior occasions does not create a factual question as to Bradley's status as a trespasser.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets the 'lawfully on the property' requirement of Michigan's dog-bite statute, narrowing the scope of strict liability for dog owners. It establishes that a physical barrier like a fence serves as strong evidence against a claim of implied license, especially when coupled with the plaintiff's own knowledge of trespassing. The ruling clarifies that a property owner's past permission granted to other individuals does not automatically extend to a different person on a separate occasion. This precedent reinforces the distinction between a licensee and a trespasser, making it more difficult for individuals who knowingly enter property without permission, even for seemingly innocent reasons, to recover under the strict liability statute.
