Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.
85 N.H. 449, 163 A. 111, 1932 N.H. LEXIS 102 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of land or a dangerous instrumentality has a duty of reasonable care to protect known or anticipated trespassers from harm, particularly when the danger is great and the wrongful conduct of the trespasser is not serious.
Facts:
- The defendant company maintained electric wires over a bridge located in the compact part of a city.
- Boys regularly climbed and played on the horizontal girders of the bridge's superstructure.
- The defendant's construction foreman was aware of this practice and had previously complained to the city marshal about the boys' use of the bridge as a playground, specifically mentioning the defendant's wires.
- While the wires were supposed to be mechanically shut off during the day, there was a known risk they could become energized at any time.
- The decedent, a boy, was playing on the girders when he lost his balance.
- To prevent himself from falling, the decedent instinctively and accidentally grabbed one of the defendant's wires.
- The wire was energized at that moment, and the boy was electrocuted and died.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's estate sued the defendant company in a trial court for negligence.
- The case was tried, and the defendant likely moved for a directed verdict, arguing it owed no duty of care to the decedent, which was denied.
- Following an adverse outcome at trial, the defendant filed an exception to the trial court's ruling.
- The defendant is now appealing to this court, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that a duty of care was owed to the trespassing decedent.
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 company that maintains dangerous, high-voltage wires on a bridge owe a duty of care to a person trespassing on the bridge's superstructure, when the company has notice that people frequently and wrongfully use that part of the bridge?
Opinions:
Majority - Allen, J.
Yes, the company owes a duty of care to the trespassing individual. The law imposes a duty of reasonable care towards known or anticipated trespassers, and this duty can require active measures to prevent harm. The defendant had notice that boys frequently climbed on the girders, making the decedent's presence foreseeable. The court reasoned that a rigid rule absolving a defendant of any duty towards a wrongdoer is unreasonable. Instead, the duty is determined by balancing factors: when the danger is great (electrocution) and the wrongful conduct of the injured person is not serious (a boy playing), it is reasonable for the law to find a relationship and impose a duty of protection. The decedent’s contact with the wire was not a willful interference but an instinctive, accidental act to prevent a fall, further strengthening the argument that the defendant's duty should not be extinguished by the boy's trespass.
Analysis:
This decision significantly moves tort law away from a rigid, status-based framework where trespassers were owed almost no duty of care. It establishes a more flexible standard based on foreseeability and reasonableness, holding that knowledge of a pattern of trespassing can create an affirmative duty to mitigate known, serious dangers. This principle has been influential in the development of doctrines concerning anticipated trespassers and attractive nuisances. The case solidifies the idea that the wrongfulness of a plaintiff's conduct does not automatically bar recovery, but is instead a factor to be weighed in assessing the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct and the existence of a duty.
