Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Isom
143 S.W.3d 486, 2004 WL 1812727, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 7335 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a landowner is not liable for harm to a trespassing child if the child is of sufficient age and maturity to appreciate the general dangers of the activity in which they are engaged on the property, even if the specific instrument of harm was a latent or hidden condition.
Facts:
- Shane Isom, who was almost fourteen years old, and two friends, Mitchell Duchamp and Aaron Little, were riding an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on a right of way owned by Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
- Mitchell was driving the ATV, with Shane seated in the middle and Aaron at the back.
- To avoid ruts in the path, Mitchell steered the ATV underneath an anchored guy wire supporting a utility pole.
- A broken guy wire, which had been broken for approximately a year, was looped around the anchored guy wire.
- The looped, broken wire was unmarked and difficult to see.
- As the ATV passed under the anchored wire, the looped broken wire struck Shane Isom in the neck, knocking him from the vehicle.
- Shane Isom subsequently died from the neck injuries he sustained.
- Shane was a mature and good student who, according to his father, understood the risks of operating the ATV, which itself had warning labels against passengers and use by persons under sixteen.
Procedural Posture:
- Ken and Suzanne Isom sued Entergy Gulf States, Inc. in a Texas trial court.
- Entergy filed three motions for summary judgment on the Isoms' claims.
- The trial court denied all of Entergy's summary judgment motions.
- The trial court then certified its order denying the motions for an immediate interlocutory appeal.
- Entergy (appellant) petitioned the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the trial court's denial, and the appellate court granted the request. The Isoms are the appellees.
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 the attractive nuisance doctrine apply to impose liability on a landowner when a trespassing child, nearly fourteen years old, is aware of the general dangers of riding an all-terrain vehicle near utility equipment but is fatally injured by a specific, latent condition he did not perceive?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice McKeithen
No. The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply because Shane Isom, due to his age and maturity, was capable of appreciating the general risks involved in the activity, thus failing to satisfy a key element of the doctrine. The court held that under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339(c), the critical inquiry is not whether the child appreciated the specific, latent danger (the loose wire), but whether the child realized the risk of 'coming within the area made dangerous' by the condition (riding an ATV near utility poles and wires). Citing Texas Utilities Elec. Co. v. Timmons, the court explained that ignorance of a specific danger is insufficient to invoke the doctrine if the child is aware of the general danger. As Entergy presented evidence of Shane's maturity and understanding of the risks of operating an ATV, and the Isoms failed to present contrary evidence showing he was too young to appreciate these general dangers, Entergy disproved an essential element of the attractive nuisance claim as a matter of law. The court also held the gross negligence claim failed because there was no evidence that Entergy had actual, subjective awareness of the specific broken wire.
Dissenting - Justice Burgess
Yes. The dissent argued that the applicability of the attractive nuisance doctrine should be a question for the jury, as there was controverted evidence regarding Shane's level of maturity. More importantly, the dissent contended that the majority erred by rendering a take-nothing judgment because the Isoms had also raised a 'gratuitous licensee' theory in their pleadings. Because Entergy's summary judgment motion only addressed the attractive nuisance and gross negligence claims and did not challenge the gratuitous licensee theory, the court could not properly dispose of the entire case. The dissent argued that the proper judgment should have been to rule on the attractive nuisance issue but remand the unaddressed gratuitous licensee claim to the trial court.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the attractive nuisance doctrine in Texas as it applies to older children and teenagers. By emphasizing the child's appreciation of the general risk over their ignorance of a specific, latent defect, the court raises the threshold for plaintiffs to successfully invoke the doctrine for adolescent trespassers. The ruling solidifies the precedent from Timmons, making it clear that a child's general awareness of danger in a particular area can defeat an attractive nuisance claim, thereby shifting focus from the landowner's specific negligence to the child's maturity and risk assessment. This makes it more difficult for such cases to survive summary judgment and reach a jury, potentially limiting landowner liability for accidents involving trespassing teens.
Unlock the full brief for Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Isom