Haskins v. Grybko
17 N.E.2d 146, 1938 Mass. LEXIS 1032, 301 Mass. 322 (1938)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff cannot recover from a landowner for ordinary negligence if the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proving that the injured person was not a trespasser on the landowner's property at the time of the injury.
Facts:
- The defendant was a lessee of a 20-acre tract of land used for growing squash.
- The defendant's squash crop had been damaged by woodchucks.
- On the evening of July 7, 1933, the defendant went to the corner of his property to shoot woodchucks.
- At dusk, he heard a rustling noise in some brush about 50 feet away and saw a moving object approximately 18 inches high.
- Believing the object was a woodchuck, the defendant shot at it.
- The next morning, the defendant returned and discovered the body of the plaintiff's intestate.
- There was no evidence to explain why the intestate was in that specific location.
- The trial judge found that the intestate was a trespasser, either on the defendant's land or on the adjacent land of a third party.
Procedural Posture:
- A public administrator, on behalf of the deceased intestate's estate (plaintiff), filed a tort action against the defendant in a Massachusetts trial court for wrongful death.
- The plaintiff's first count alleged that the death was caused by the defendant's negligence.
- The trial judge, sitting without a jury, found for the plaintiff.
- The judge specifically found that the defendant was guilty of ordinary negligence and ruled that the plaintiff could recover on that basis, even if the deceased was a trespasser.
- The defendant filed an exception to the judge's ruling on the standard of care, bringing the case before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts for review.
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 owe a duty to refrain from ordinary negligence to a person injured on or near their property, when the plaintiff cannot prove that the injured person was not a trespasser on the landowner's property?
Opinions:
Majority - Ronan, J.
No. A plaintiff cannot recover for ordinary negligence without first proving the injured party was not a trespasser on the defendant's land. The duty of care a landowner owes depends on the injured person's legal status relative to the landowner. If the intestate was a trespasser on a third party's land, the defendant would owe a duty of reasonable care. However, if the intestate was a trespasser on the defendant's own land, the defendant is only liable for intentional injury or for 'wilful, wanton and reckless conduct,' not for mere negligence. Since the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proving the intestate's location and status—specifically, that he was not a trespasser on the defendant's land—the plaintiff is not entitled to recover based on a theory of ordinary negligence. Therefore, the trial court's ruling to the contrary was erroneous.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law rule that distinguishes duties of care based on a person's status on land (e.g., trespasser, licensee, invitee). It crucially places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish a status that would permit recovery for ordinary negligence. By doing so, the court protects landowners from liability for simple carelessness towards individuals whose presence on the property is unknown and unlawful, especially in situations where evidence about the victim's status is scarce or non-existent.
