Gerchberg v. Loney
223 Kan. 446, 576 P.2d 593 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Kansas law retains the traditional common-law classifications of trespasser, licensee, and invitee, which determine the duty of care a possessor of land owes to entrants. However, the attractive nuisance doctrine creates an exception, imposing liability on a landowner for harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition if the landowner should have known children were likely to trespass and the condition posed an unreasonable risk that a child would not appreciate.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Roy Loney maintained a fifty-five-gallon metal barrel in their backyard which they used as an incinerator.
- Their ten-year-old son, Rodney Loney, was directed to burn papers in the incinerator.
- Five-year-old Rolf Gerchberg, a neighbor, was present with Rodney and observed him starting the fire and putting papers in the barrel.
- After a short time, both boys left the area, leaving the fire unattended and smoldering.
- About thirty minutes later, Gerchberg returned alone to the smoldering incinerator.
- Gerchberg began putting more papers into the barrel, which caused the fire to blaze up.
- The flames ignited Gerchberg's clothing, causing him to suffer serious burn injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Rolf Gerchberg sued Mr. and Mrs. Roy Loney in the District Court of Douglas County, Kansas (trial court).
- At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants, the Loneys.
- Gerchberg, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Kansas Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial on the theory of attractive nuisance.
- Both parties sought review from the Kansas Supreme Court: Gerchberg on the issue of abolishing classifications, and the Loneys on the attractive nuisance ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should Kansas discard the traditional common-law classifications of entrants upon land (trespasser, licensee, and invitee) and the distinct duties of care owed to each in favor of a single standard of reasonable care under all circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Fromme, J.
No. Kansas will not discard the traditional classifications of trespassers, licensees, and invitees in favor of a single standard of reasonable care. The court holds that these classifications, developed over generations, provide valuable and necessary guidance for courts and juries in determining the rights of landowners. The majority reasoned that abandoning these classifications would not only lower the standard of care owed to invitees but would also give lay juries an unguided, free hand to impose liability without predictable standards. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's evidence presented a submissible case under the well-established attractive nuisance doctrine, making it an inappropriate case to overhaul all of premises liability law.
Dissenting - Prager, J.
Yes. The traditional classifications should be abandoned, at least for licensees and invitees, because they are archaic and contrary to the modern principle that all persons should use ordinary care to prevent injuring others. The dissent argues that a person's life or limb should not be less worthy of protection simply because of their status on another's land. It contends that focusing on status obscures the proper considerations that should govern the duty of care. However, this dissent also concludes that, under the facts of this specific case, the defendants were not negligent as a matter of law because it was not reasonably foreseeable that the child would return and reignite the smoldering fire.
Dissenting - Miller, J.
Yes, in part. The distinction between licensees and invitees should be eliminated in favor of a single standard of reasonable care for all persons entering land with consent. However, the trespasser classification should be retained, along with the traditional duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless injury.
Concurring - Owsley, J.
No, this case is not the proper vehicle for discarding the traditional classifications. The justice agrees with the majority's conclusion that the case should be submitted to a jury on the theory of attractive nuisance. However, he expresses strong dissatisfaction with the current law and states a firm conviction that the distinction between invitees and licensees should be eliminated in a future, more appropriate case.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant reaffirmation of traditional common-law premises liability rules at a time when many other jurisdictions were moving toward a single, unified standard of reasonable care. The court's decision signals a judicial philosophy favoring doctrinal stability and predictable rules over the flexibility of a general negligence standard. By retaining the trespasser-licensee-invitee framework, the Kansas Supreme Court solidified a more landowner-protective approach and indicated that any major changes to this area of law would likely have to occur incrementally or through the legislature. The case is a key example of the jurisprudential split on this issue in the latter half of the 20th century.
Unlock the full brief for Gerchberg v. Loney