Crawford v. Pacific Western Mobile Estates, Inc.
548 SW 2d 216 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of land is liable for physical harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition if they should anticipate children's presence and the children, due to their youth and distracting elements, fail to appreciate an otherwise obvious risk, provided the burden of eliminating the danger is slight compared to the risk.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs and their six-year-old son, Mark Crawford, were residents of a trailer park owned and operated by defendant Pacific Western Mobile Estates, Inc.
- On the property, Pacific Western maintained a sewage treatment plant with an open, uncovered settlement tank that was 7.5 feet deep and filled with 6 feet of murky effluent.
- The tank was enclosed by a six-foot-tall solid wooden fence, but Pacific Western's maintenance employees had piled concrete blocks against the outside of the fence, creating a 'stairway' that reached to within six inches of the top.
- Many children lived in the trailer park and were known to play throughout the grounds, including on the concrete blocks piled against the fence.
- The resident manager, defendant Wilma Gilbert, was aware that children frequently played on these blocks.
- On November 22, 1973, Mark Crawford gained access to the enclosed area, where a ball was floating in the tank and small wooden and metal bridges stretched across it.
- Mark fell into the tank and drowned; his small handprints were later found on the interior vertical wall above the water line.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Crawford's parents sued Pacific Western Mobile Estates, Inc. and its manager, Wilma Gilbert, in a Missouri trial court for wrongful death.
- A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, awarding them $30,000.
- Following the verdict, the trial court granted the defendants' post-trial motions, set aside the jury verdict, and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of 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:
Does a landowner have a duty of care and potential liability under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 for the drowning death of a six-year-old trespassing child in an artificial settlement tank, when the landowner's employees created easy access over a safety fence and distracting elements were present?
Opinions:
Majority - Wasserstrom, Presiding Judge.
Yes. A landowner is subject to liability for physical harm to trespassing children under the conditions outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339. The court found that the plaintiffs established a submissible case by meeting all five elements of the § 339 test. First, the defendant had reason to know children would trespass, given that its own employees created the 'stairway' of blocks and the manager knew children played there. Second, the open tank constituted an unreasonable risk of death. Third, although water is typically an obvious danger, special distracting factors existed—the murky water obscuring the depth, a floating ball, and bridge-like structures—which prevented the six-year-old from appreciating the full risk. Fourth, the burden of eliminating the danger by moving the blocks was slight compared to the risk of a child drowning. Finally, the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care, having created the hazard and taken no steps to remedy it or warn residents. Therefore, the old Missouri attractive nuisance cases are no longer controlling after the adoption of § 339.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Missouri's adoption of the more expansive landowner liability standard for child trespassers found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, moving definitively away from the state's older, more restrictive 'attractive nuisance' doctrine. The case is significant for its treatment of 'open and obvious' dangers, establishing that a landowner can still be liable for such dangers if 'distracting elements' prevent a child from fully appreciating the risk. This creates a more nuanced, fact-intensive inquiry, requiring courts to consider the scene from the perspective of a child and increasing the duty of care for landowners in areas where children are known to be present.
Unlock the full brief for Crawford v. Pacific Western Mobile Estates, Inc.