Hayes v. D.C.I. Props.-D KY, LLC
563 S.W.3d 619 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Kentucky, a property owner's duty to a trespasser is generally limited to refraining from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that intentionally inflicts injury, and the attractive nuisance doctrine will not apply to minor trespassers who, due to their age and experience, were capable of appreciating and did in fact appreciate the risks involved with the dangerous condition.
Facts:
- In September 2014, 16-year-old Alex Hayes and several friends entered a construction site owned by D.C.I. Properties-DKY LLC (DCI) without permission or knowledge from the owner.
- The site was being prepared by contractor The Nelson Stark Company (NSC), whose employees had left several pieces of heavy equipment on the property.
- Alex and his friends spent several hours on the property, on the banks of the Ohio River, drinking whiskey and smoking marijuana.
- Earlier in the evening, Alex removed keys from at least one piece of machinery because he recognized that a friend might get hurt if he started the machine.
- As Alex and one of his friends started to walk back towards town, Alex climbed onto a sheepsfoot compactor owned by NSC.
- Despite his friend's protests, Alex started the compactor and began driving it up a floodwall.
- As Alex drove the compactor down the floodwall, it tipped over, threw Alex off, and landed on his right leg, severely injuring it.
- A paramedic who treated Alex at the scene testified that Alex was lucid and admitted stealing and driving the compactor before it flipped over and landed on his leg.
Procedural Posture:
- Alex Hayes, through his parents as next friends and natural guardians, filed a personal injury action alleging negligence based on attractive nuisance against D.C.I. Properties-DKY LLC and The Nelson Stark Company in Campbell Circuit Court (trial court).
- Following discovery, both defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
- The Campbell Circuit Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the Hayeses' action.
- The Hayeses appealed the decision to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Hayeses filed a motion for discretionary review with the Supreme Court of Kentucky, which was granted.
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 exception mitigate the status of a 16-year-old trespasser who was injured on a construction site, such that a property owner or contractor could be held liable for negligence when the teenager understood the inherent dangers of heavy equipment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice VanMeter
No, the attractive nuisance exception does not mitigate the status of a 16-year-old trespasser injured on a construction site under these circumstances because Alex, due to his age and demonstrated awareness of danger, appreciated the risks involved. The court reaffirmed Kentucky's traditional premises liability framework, which categorizes visitors as trespassers, licensees, or invitees, with different duties owed to each. For a trespasser, a landowner's duty is limited to not intentionally inflicting injuries through willful, wanton, or reckless conduct, as codified in KRS 381.232 and interpreted by Kirschner v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co.. The attractive nuisance doctrine provides a narrow exception for child trespassers. However, to apply this doctrine, a child must, 'because of their youth,' not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it. Alex, at 16 years and 7 months, was a licensed driver, in the 11th grade with average to above-average grades, and had demonstrated his appreciation of the danger by removing keys from other equipment earlier in the evening. His friend also protested his actions. Therefore, Alex was not 'unable to appreciate the risk involved' and is not entitled to the presumption of the attractive nuisance doctrine. Since the doctrine is inapplicable, Alex occupied the same position as an adult trespasser, and there was no evidence that DCI or NSC engaged in willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.
Concurring in result - Chief Justice Minton
Yes, the result reached by the majority is correct, but the attractive nuisance exception should not apply because Alex was a "flagrant trespasser" under a different legal framework. Chief Justice Minton would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts approach to premises liability, which imposes a unitary duty of reasonable care owed to all entrants except for "flagrant trespassers." Under this proposed framework, Alex's actions would classify him as a flagrant trespasser, meaning no duty of care would be owed to him. The Chief Justice also suggested re-examining the constitutionality of KRS 381.232, which limits liability to trespassers.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms Kentucky's adherence to traditional premises liability categories (trespasser, licensee, invitee) and the limited duty owed to trespassers, even minor ones. It clarifies that the attractive nuisance doctrine is not a blanket exception for all minors, but specifically for children who, 'because of their youth,' cannot appreciate a dangerous condition. The court's emphasis on the minor's subjective awareness and experience sets a high bar for invoking the doctrine, particularly for older adolescents, and reiterates that comparative fault does not override the fundamental question of duty in premises liability cases.
