Herrick v. Wixom
1899 Mich. LEXIS 582, 121 Mich. 384, 80 N.W. 117 (1899)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is liable for injuries to a known or discovered trespasser caused by the landowner's active negligence. Once a trespasser's presence is known, the owner owes a duty to exercise ordinary care to avoid injuring them through affirmative acts.
Facts:
- Defendant Wixom owned and managed a traveling circus.
- Plaintiff Herrick attended the circus and sat in the audience.
- The parties disputed whether Herrick was an invited guest or a trespasser who had entered without a ticket.
- As part of the show, a clown ignited a giant firecracker in one of the show rings.
- The firecracker exploded, and a fragment struck Herrick in the eye, causing him to lose his sight in that eye.
- Wixom's employees were aware of Herrick's presence in the audience when the firecracker was detonated.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Herrick brought an action of trespass on the case (a negligence suit) against Defendant Wixom in the circuit court for the county of Shiawassee, the trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury, which rendered a verdict of 'no cause of action' in favor of the defendant.
- The trial court entered a judgment for the defendant, Wixom.
- Plaintiff Herrick, as appellant, brought error to appeal the judgment to the Supreme Court of Michigan.
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 property owner owe a duty of ordinary care to a known trespasser to avoid injury from active negligence performed after the trespasser's presence has been discovered?
Opinions:
Majority - Montgomery, J.
Yes. A property owner owes a duty of ordinary care to a known trespasser to avoid injury from active negligence. The court distinguished between injuries from a passive, dangerous condition on the premises—for which a trespasser generally has no remedy—and injuries resulting from active negligence committed after the owner discovers the trespasser. The court held that once a trespasser is discovered, they are 'not beyond the pale of the law,' and the owner cannot negligently injure them through an affirmative act. The trial court's instruction, which suggested that Herrick's status as a trespasser would completely bar recovery, was erroneous because the circus staff knew he was present when they conducted the dangerous experiment. Therefore, they owed him a duty of care regardless of his status as an invitee or trespasser.
Analysis:
This case establishes a key exception to the traditional common law rule that landowners owe no duty of care to trespassers. It creates a crucial distinction between liability for passive conditions on land and liability for active, negligent operations. The decision affirms that a person's status as a trespasser does not give a landowner a license to disregard their safety when conducting dangerous activities once their presence is known. This principle significantly impacts premises liability law by imposing a duty of reasonable care on landowners concerning their active operations towards individuals they know are on their property, regardless of their legal status.
