Commonwealth v. Henderson's Guardian
1932 Ky. LEXIS 598, 53 S.W.2d 694, 245 Ky. 328 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to a trespasser, including a 15-year-old of normal intelligence, is limited to refraining from willful or wanton injury. An individual who exceeds the scope of an implied license by appropriating property becomes a trespasser to whom this limited duty applies.
Facts:
- The Commonwealth of Kentucky owned a state garage used by the State Highway Commission.
- Claude Henderson, a 15-year-old boy, and a companion went onto the state garage premises without invitation or permission to gather junk.
- While searching through a refuse heap on the property, Henderson and his companion found materials including three dynamite caps.
- Later, while away from the premises, Henderson used a match to clean one of the caps.
- The caps exploded, causing an injury to Henderson's left hand that required amputation.
Procedural Posture:
- George Roper, Jr., as guardian for Claude Henderson, filed an action against the Commonwealth of Kentucky in a trial court to recover damages for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $6,000.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the plaintiff based on the jury's verdict.
- The Commonwealth of Kentucky, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky.
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 owe a duty of care, beyond refraining from willful or wanton injury, to a 15-year-old who enters the property without permission to collect junk and is subsequently injured by explosives found there?
Opinions:
Majority - Creal, Commissioner
No, a landowner does not owe a duty of ordinary care to a 15-year-old trespasser under these circumstances. Even if Henderson was a licensee with an implied permission to play on the grounds, he exceeded the scope of that license when he proceeded to search for and appropriate property for himself. By doing so, he became a trespasser. The duty owed by a landowner to a trespasser is only to refrain from inflicting willful or wanton injury. The special protections for trespassing infants under the attractive nuisance doctrine are inapplicable to a 15-year-old of presumed normal intelligence, who, for the purposes of trespass, is placed on the same footing as an adult. Therefore, the Commonwealth owed Henderson no duty to make the premises safe for him, and the trial court should have directed a verdict in its favor.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law framework that defines a landowner's duty based on the entrant's status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. It clarifies that a licensee can become a trespasser by exceeding the scope of the license, thereby reducing the duty of care owed by the landowner. The case is significant for establishing that a 15-year-old is presumptively treated as an adult regarding the risks of trespassing, and the special protections for young children under doctrines like attractive nuisance will not apply absent a showing of subnormal mentality. This holding limits the liability of landowners for injuries sustained by teenage trespassers due to passive conditions on the land.
