Bennett v. Stanley
92 Ohio St. 3d 35 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owes a duty of ordinary care to a trespassing child when the landowner knows or should know that children are likely to trespass and be harmed by an artificial condition on the land. An adult who attempts to rescue a child from such a danger, known as an attractive nuisance, assumes the status of the child and is also owed a duty of ordinary care.
Facts:
- Jeffrey and Stacey Stanley owned a home with a swimming pool that had been unused for three years.
- The Stanleys allowed the pool to fill with over six feet of rainwater, which became murky and contained frogs and algae.
- They removed a protective tarp and the fencing that had enclosed two sides of the pool.
- The Bennett family, including five-year-old Chance Lattea and his mother Cher Bennett, moved into the house next door, approximately 100 feet away.
- The Stanleys were aware that the Bennetts had young children and had seen them playing outside unsupervised.
- There was an eight-foot gap in the fencing that separated the two properties.
- On March 20, 1997, Chance went to the Stanleys' pool, fell in, and drowned.
- Chance's mother, Cher Bennett, drowned while apparently attempting to rescue him from the pool.
Procedural Posture:
- Rickey Bennett, as administrator of the estates, filed a wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit against Jeffrey and Stacey Stanley in the trial court.
- The Stanleys filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty of ordinary care to the decedents as they were trespassers.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Stanleys.
- Bennett, as appellant, appealed the decision to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Stanleys only owed the decedents a duty to refrain from wanton and willful misconduct.
- Bennett, as appellant, was granted a discretionary appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
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 landowner owe a duty of ordinary care to a trespassing child who is harmed by an artificial condition on the land if the landowner knows or should know children are likely to trespass and be exposed to an unreasonable risk of serious harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Pfeifer, J.
Yes. A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition on the land. The court adopts the attractive nuisance doctrine as set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 339, which recognizes that children are entitled to a greater level of protection than adults due to their inability to appreciate certain dangers. This decision overrules prior Ohio case law that had rejected the doctrine and brings Ohio in line with the vast majority of other states. The court reasoned that this is an appropriate evolution of the common law, balancing the rights of landowners with society's interest in protecting children. Furthermore, an adult who attempts to rescue a child from an attractive nuisance assumes the status of the child and is also owed a duty of ordinary care.
Dissenting - Cook, J.
No, the court should not adopt the attractive nuisance doctrine in this case. The dissent argues that the plaintiff, Bennett, waived this legal theory by expressly disclaiming any reliance on it at the trial court, appellate court, and in their initial brief to the Supreme Court. It is procedurally improper for the court to decide a major, groundbreaking issue that was not raised by the parties themselves but by an amicus curiae. The dissent also argues that extending the attractive nuisance doctrine to the adult rescuer is unnecessary, as the well-established common law 'rescue doctrine' would already allow a rescuer to recover if the landowner was found negligent toward the child.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Moyer, C.J.
The author concurs with the majority's decision to adopt the attractive nuisance doctrine for trespassing children. However, the author dissents from the portion of the opinion and the syllabus holding that an adult rescuer assumes the status of the child and is covered by the attractive nuisance doctrine itself.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally changed Ohio's premises liability law by formally adopting the attractive nuisance doctrine. It overturned over a century of precedent that had treated child trespassers with the same low standard of care as adults, requiring only that landowners refrain from willful or wanton misconduct. By adopting the five-factor test from the Restatement, the court established a new standard of ordinary care owed to foreseeable child trespassers under specific circumstances. This holding significantly increases the potential liability of landowners and requires them to take reasonable measures to protect children from artificial hazards on their property that may be alluring to them.
Unlock the full brief for Bennett v. Stanley