Fourseam Coal Corp. v. Greer Ex Rel. Greer
282 S.W.2d 129 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to dangers that are open and obvious to young children, particularly those associated with ordinary, immobile structures where the risk of falling is readily apparent and understood.
Facts:
- Charles Greer, a six-year-old boy, was crossing a coal tipple owned and operated by Fourseam Coal Corporation as a shortcut from his home to his grandparents' home.
- The coal tipple was a large structure with three sets of mine railway tracks and a roadbed, extending across a small valley.
- The tipple had no floor beneath the railway tracks and included a large V-shaped open space between two sets of tracks, with its top being 40 to 50 feet above the low point of the valley.
- Charles Greer fell through a gap or open place on the top of the tipple from a point approximately 20 to 25 feet above a sloping hillside.
- There were no gates at either end of the tipple and no guard rails installed on the structure.
- Children in the neighborhood frequently played upon the tipple, and officials of the Fourseam Coal Corporation were aware of this fact.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles Greer, an infant, recovered a judgment of $5,000 as damages for personal injuries against the Fourseam Coal Corporation in the trial court.
- The Fourseam Coal Corporation appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, maintaining that the trial court erred in not sustaining its motion for a directed verdict.
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 impose liability on a landowner for injuries sustained by a six-year-old child who fell from a coal tipple, an ordinary and immobile business structure, where the danger of falling was readily apparent and not a hidden or latent risk?
Opinions:
Majority - Cullen, Commissioner
No, the attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to hold Fourseam Coal Corporation liable for Charles Greer's injuries because the danger of falling from the coal tipple was an open and obvious risk that a child of his age should have recognized and appreciated. The Court adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine as outlined in Section 339 of the Restatement of the Law of Torts, particularly focusing on Clauses (b) and (c). While Fourseam Coal Corporation knew children frequented the tipple (satisfying Clause (a)), the critical inquiry was whether the condition involved an 'unreasonable risk' (b) that children, due to their youth, would 'not discover or realize' (c). The court clarified that these clauses are interrelated, meaning if a risk is one young children should discover and realize, it is not an 'unreasonable' risk to them. Kentucky precedent consistently requires a 'hidden or latent danger' for the attractive nuisance doctrine to apply, generally refusing to extend it to immobile structures where the danger is 'natural and obvious.' Previous cases denied recovery for falls from viaducts, bridges, and coal chutes, and emphasized that dangers like holes in the ground or common structures present readily apparent risks. Conversely, recovery was allowed for 'hidden dangers' like negligently piled lumber that created a 'trap.' The court concluded that a six-year-old child would understand and appreciate the risk of falling from a tall, open coal tipple. Therefore, the attractive nuisance doctrine was inapplicable, and Fourseam Coal Corporation's motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained.
Analysis:
This case significantly refines the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine in Kentucky, creating a stricter interpretation for landowner liability. It establishes a critical distinction between hidden/latent dangers and open/obvious dangers, emphasizing that the doctrine generally does not compel landowners to guard against risks that children, even of tender years, can readily perceive. The ruling encourages landowners to maintain premises safely but limits their responsibility for injuries from common, immobile structures that present obvious hazards. Future cases will likely scrutinize the 'hidden or latent' nature of a danger when considering attractive nuisance claims, making it more challenging for plaintiffs injured by patent dangers on fixed structures.
