Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Van Benshoten
166 N.E. 374, 120 Ohio St. 438, 120 Ohio St. (N.S.) 438 (1929)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner owes no duty of care to an unknown trespasser for injuries resulting from the trespasser's own unforeseeable actions, as liability in negligence requires that the injury be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the owner's conduct.
Facts:
- A defendant contractor erected a building, or shed, in the center of a street for the sole use of its work crew.
- The defendant obtained a permit from the city to place the shed in the street.
- The plaintiff, who was not a worker for the defendant, entered the shed for a personal purpose.
- While inside, the plaintiff lit a match.
- The lit match ignited gas within the shed, causing an explosion that injured the plaintiff.
- The defendant was unaware of the plaintiff's presence in or near the shed.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued the defendant in the Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- The Court of Common Pleas ruled in favor of the defendant.
- Plaintiff, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, finding for the plaintiff.
- Defendant, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio (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 contractor who places a tool shed in a public street for its workers' exclusive use owe a duty of care to a member of the public who enters the shed as a trespasser and is injured by his own unforeseeable act of lighting a match, causing an explosion?
Opinions:
Majority - By the Court
No. The contractor owed no duty of care because the plaintiff was an unforeseeable trespasser whose injuries were caused by his own actions. The plaintiff's legal status was that of a trespasser, not an invitee or licensee, as the shed was built for the private use of the defendant's workers and not for the public. The defendant was unaware of the plaintiff's presence and, as the plaintiff was not a child, the doctrine of attractive nuisance does not apply. The court reasoned that an ordinarily prudent person could not have reasonably anticipated or foreseen that the plaintiff would enter the shed for a personal purpose and then light a match, causing an explosion. The plaintiff's act of lighting the match was the intervening immediate cause of the accident, breaking the chain of causation from any potential negligence by the defendant. Without a foreseeable duty and a breach of that duty, the defendant cannot be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law framework that premises liability on the plaintiff's status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. It underscores the critical role of foreseeability in establishing a duty of care, particularly concerning unknown trespassers. The ruling clarifies that a defendant is not an insurer of safety against all harms, and liability does not attach when the specific manner of injury is due to the plaintiff's own bizarre or unpredictable actions. This case serves as a strong precedent for defendants in negligence cases where an injury is caused by an unforeseeable intervening act of the plaintiff.
Unlock the full brief for Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v. Van Benshoten