Lexplug logoLexplug

Cleveland Park Club v. Perry

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1960 D.C. App. LEXIS 266, 165 A.2d 485 (1960)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A child is liable for the intentional tort of trespass if they possess the intent to perform the physical act that causes the damage, regardless of their age or subjective understanding that the act could cause harm.


Facts:

  • The Cleveland Park Club operated a private swimming pool for its members.
  • A nine-year-old boy was a guest at the pool.
  • The boy swam to the bottom of the pool, which was seven feet deep.
  • He lifted a metal cover from a drain opening.
  • Thinking there was no suction, the boy inserted a tennis ball into the drain pipe and replaced the cover.
  • The tennis ball became lodged in a critical part of the drainage system, causing it to fail.
  • The failure of the drainage system forced the club to close the pool to conduct repairs.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Cleveland Park Club sued a nine-year-old boy in the trial court for damages, alleging trespass.
  • During the trial, the Club moved for a directed verdict, which the court denied.
  • The case was submitted to a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the boy.
  • The trial court entered a judgment against the Cleveland Park Club.
  • The Cleveland Park Club (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is a child liable for the intentional tort of trespass if they intended to perform the physical act that caused the damage, regardless of their age or their understanding of the act's injurious consequences?


Opinions:

Majority - Rover, Chief Judge

Yes. A child is liable for trespass if they intended to perform the physical act that caused harm, regardless of their age or their appreciation of the potential consequences. The court distinguished intentional torts from negligence, where a child's age is a primary consideration. For trespass, liability is based on the commission of the act and the resulting damage, not on the intent to cause injury. The key legal question is whether the child formed the intent to do the physical act itself—in this case, placing the ball in the pipe. While a child's age and experience are relevant to determining their capacity to form such an intent, age is not a defense if the intent to act is established. Here, the court found the boy's actions were comprised of several interrelated steps that were so clearly deliberate that his intent to perform the physical act could be established as a matter of law, and the issue should not have been submitted to the jury.



Analysis:

This case solidifies the distinction between a child's liability in negligence versus intentional torts. It establishes that for trespass, the only requisite intent is the intent to perform the physical act, not the intent to cause the resulting harm. This lowers the bar for holding minors liable for trespass, as their immaturity or inability to foresee consequences is rendered irrelevant once the intent to act is proven. The decision provides a clear framework for future cases, directing courts to focus on the child's capacity to form intent for the physical act itself, rather than treating age as a broad defense to liability.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Cleveland Park Club v. Perry (1960) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Cleveland Park Club v. Perry