Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co.
44 A. 809 (1897)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owes no legal duty to protect a trespasser from dangers inherent to the condition of the premises, and this rule applies even when the trespasser is a child of tender years incapable of appreciating the danger.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, an eight-year-old boy, entered the defendants' textile mill without permission to see his older brother who worked there.
- The plaintiff did not speak or understand English.
- An overseer for the defendants saw the plaintiff and told him to leave, but the plaintiff did not understand and remained on the premises.
- The overseer did not forcibly remove the plaintiff from the mill.
- The defendants' machinery was in proper working order and was being operated in the usual and ordinary manner.
- The plaintiff's hand was subsequently caught and crushed in the gearing of a machine, causing injury.
- The defendants did not alter their business operations or actively intervene in a way that caused the plaintiff's injury.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, Buch, sued the defendants, Amory Manufacturing Co., in the trial court for negligence.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found in favor of the plaintiff.
- The defendants appealed the jury verdict to the state's highest court.
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 have a legal duty to protect a trespassing child, who is incapable of appreciating the danger, from injury caused by the ordinary operation of machinery on the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Carpenter, C. J.
No. A landowner does not have a legal duty to protect a trespassing child from injury caused by the condition of the premises. Actionable negligence arises from the neglect of a legal duty, not a moral one. The court reasoned that the defendants owed the plaintiff, as a trespasser, only the duty to refrain from active intervention or intentional acts of violence. They had no affirmative duty to protect him from dangers arising from the normal, lawful operation of their business. The court found no legal distinction between the duty owed to an adult trespasser facing a hidden danger and an infant trespasser incapable of appreciating an open danger. The fact of the plaintiff's infancy did not impose the legal duty of a guardian upon the defendants merely because he trespassed on their property.
Analysis:
This case establishes a stringent and traditional common law rule regarding landowner liability to child trespassers, explicitly rejecting a humanitarian exception. It draws a sharp line between a moral obligation to help and a legal duty to act, holding that a trespasser's status is the determinative factor. This decision stands in contrast to the later-developed 'attractive nuisance' doctrine adopted in many other jurisdictions, which imposes a higher duty of care on landowners when a dangerous condition is likely to attract children. The ruling solidifies the principle that a property owner is not an insurer of the safety of those who enter without permission, regardless of their age or capacity.
