Bloodworth v. Stuart Ex Rel. Stuart
428 S.W.2d 786, 221 Tenn. 567, 25 McCanless 567 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner who knows or should know that children habitually trespass and use their property as a playground is subject to liability for physical harm caused by an artificial condition if the owner fails to exercise reasonable care to protect the children from a danger they are unlikely to appreciate due to their youth.
Facts:
- J. B. Bloodworth, a general contractor, was constructing a one-story concrete block school addition adjacent to a public playground.
- The construction site was left unfenced, unattended by a watchman, and without warning signs after working hours.
- James M. Stuart, Jr., an 11-year-old boy, lived in the neighborhood and habitually played on the adjacent public playground during the summer.
- Bloodworth was aware that children from the playground would come onto the construction site after working hours to play.
- On August 22, 1963, Bloodworth's employees placed a 75-pound concrete lintel in wet mortar above a closet doorway and left a metal scaffold next to it.
- Shortly after the workers left, Stuart entered the unfinished building.
- Stuart placed his foot on a brace of the scaffold and grasped the unsecured lintel.
- The scaffold slipped, causing Stuart to fall backwards, and the lintel fell and crushed his leg, which was later amputated.
Procedural Posture:
- James M. Stuart, Jr. sued J. B. Bloodworth in the Circuit Court of Davidson County, a trial court, for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a general verdict in favor of Stuart for $50,000.
- Bloodworth, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Tennessee, the state's highest court, granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
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 construction contractor have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect trespassing children from injury on a construction site when the contractor knows the site is adjacent to a public playground and that children habitually play on the site after working hours?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Chattin
Yes. A contractor who knows that children habitually use a construction site as a playground is bound to exercise ordinary care to ensure the premises are reasonably safe. This principle, known as the 'playground doctrine,' applies where a landowner knows or should know that children of immature years are habitually trespassing to use the land as a playground under conditions involving an unreasonable risk of bodily injury which children, due to their youth, will fail to appreciate. In this case, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find the playground doctrine applied: the site was next to a public playground, the defendant knew children trespassed daily, and the cost of preventative measures like a fence or watchman was small compared to the risk. This duty exists separately from the 'attractive nuisance' doctrine, which requires that the child was enticed onto the premises by the specific instrumentality that caused the harm; here, the trial court erred in submitting the attractive nuisance claim to the jury, but the general verdict is sustained on the valid playground doctrine count.
Dissenting - Dyer, Justice
No. While there was sufficient evidence to submit the playground doctrine claim to the jury, the trial court committed prejudicial error by also submitting the legally inapplicable attractive nuisance claim. Because evidence was introduced to support both theories, it is impossible to know whether the jury based its general verdict on the proper legal ground (playground doctrine) or the improper one (attractive nuisance). This confusion affirmatively appears to have prejudiced the defendant's case. Unlike situations where an erroneous claim is submitted without any supporting evidence, here the jury was presented with evidence on a faulty legal theory, tainting the entire verdict. Therefore, the judgment should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial solely on the playground doctrine count.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'playground doctrine' in Tennessee tort law, clearly distinguishing it from the more restrictive 'attractive nuisance' doctrine. The ruling establishes that a landowner's knowledge of habitual child trespass is the key trigger for a duty of reasonable care, regardless of whether a specific object lured the child onto the property. This precedent broadens potential liability for owners of land, particularly commercial or industrial sites located near areas frequented by children, like parks and schools. Future cases will likely focus on what constitutes 'habitual' trespass and 'reasonable care' in securing such properties against foreseeable dangers to trespassing children.
