Brown v. Dellinger
1962 Tex. App. LEXIS 2309, 355 S.W.2d 742 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A minor who intentionally performs an act that constitutes a trespass is civilly liable for all damages that directly result, regardless of the minor's age, intent to cause harm, or ability to foresee the consequences of the act.
Facts:
- George Thompson Brown and Dan Christian Woldert, Jr., two boys between the ages of seven and eight, were of at least average intelligence and had been warned about playing with matches.
- On January 23, 1959, while property owner John L. Dellinger was out of town, the two boys entered his garage, which was closed off by a canvas curtain.
- Feeling cold, the boys decided to build a fire in a portable charcoal grill they found inside the garage.
- Woldert went to his nearby home to get matches, making three separate trips to ensure they had enough.
- Working together, the boys gathered leaves, placed them in the grill near the canvas curtain, and successfully ignited a fire.
- After warming themselves for a short time, the boys discovered that the canvas curtain had caught fire, likely from contact with the grill or sparks.
- The boys were unable to extinguish the fire, which spread from the curtain to the garage and then to the rest of the house, causing substantial damage.
- Dellinger had never given the boys express or implied permission to build a fire anywhere on his property.
Procedural Posture:
- John L. Dellinger sued George Thompson Brown and Dan Christian Woldert, Jr., minors, in a Texas trial court to recover damages from a fire.
- Dellinger filed an amended motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
- The minor defendants also filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted Dellinger's motion for partial summary judgment, finding the defendants liable as a matter of law, and denied the defendants' motions.
- The parties subsequently entered a stipulation as to the amount of damages.
- The trial court entered a final judgment in favor of Dellinger for the stipulated amount.
- The defendants (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Civil 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:
Are minors, ages seven and eight, liable for damages resulting from a fire they intentionally started on another's property without permission, even if they did not intend for the fire to cause damage?
Opinions:
Majority - Fanning, Justice.
Yes. Minors are liable for damages resulting from their trespass because liability is based on the intentional commission of the act of trespass itself, not on their intent to cause the resulting harm or their ability to foresee the consequences. The court reasoned that although the boys may have had implied permission to be on the property, they exceeded the scope of that permission and became trespassers as a matter of law the moment they ignited an unauthorized fire. The court emphasized that for the tort of trespass, negligence and foreseeability are irrelevant; the trespasser is held liable for all damages directly flowing from their intentional act. Citing established precedent, the court affirmed that infancy is not a defense to intentional torts like trespass, and a child can be held liable so long as they possessed the capacity to form the intent to do the physical act, which in this case was lighting the fire.
Dissenting - Davis, Justice.
No. The case should not have been decided by summary judgment because there are procedural errors and unresolved issues of material fact. The dissent argues that it is unclear if the minor defendants were ever properly served with citation, a procedural necessity. Furthermore, an attorney or guardian ad litem cannot admit or stipulate away a minor's substantial rights, meaning all facts must be proven in court. The dissent highlights a conflict in the evidence: the plaintiff testified the boys were welcome in the garage, while the minors' attorneys stipulated they had not played there before. This conflict creates a question of fact as to whether the boys' initial entry was authorized, which should be resolved by a trial, not a summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that trespass is a tort of strict liability, even when committed by very young children. It distinguishes the mental state required for intentional torts from that required for negligence. For trespass, the only intent needed is the intent to perform the physical act (e.g., entering land or lighting a fire), not the intent to cause harm. This case serves as a crucial precedent by holding that the special, more lenient standards applied to children in negligence cases do not extend to intentional torts, thereby holding minors accountable for the direct consequences of their purposeful acts that violate property rights.
