Hill v. National Grid
11 A.3d 110, 2011 WL 193454, 2011 R.I. LEXIS 9 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the attractive nuisance doctrine, a landowner may be held liable for harm to a trespassing child if there are sufficient facts from which a jury could conclude the owner had reason to know children were likely to trespass and that a dangerous artificial condition existed on the land.
Facts:
- National Grid, a public utility, owned a grass-covered vacant lot situated in the midst of a residential neighborhood.
- A National Grid employee inspected the property five or six times a year, and a separate grounds-keeping crew performed monthly maintenance, including mowing and debris removal.
- Two metal poles were protruding from the ground on the lot.
- Twelve-year-old Austin Hill was playing touch football with friends on the vacant lot.
- While running, Hill tripped over one unseen metal pole and fell onto a second one.
- The fall caused a deep laceration to Hill's left thigh, which required emergency room treatment and resulted in a permanent scar.
Procedural Posture:
- Harry and Rebecca Hill, on behalf of their son Austin, filed a negligence complaint against National Grid in Providence County Superior Court (trial court).
- National Grid filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to Austin because he was a trespasser.
- The Hills responded that National Grid owed a duty under the attractive nuisance doctrine.
- The Superior Court justice granted summary judgment in favor of National Grid, ruling that the plaintiffs had not shown that National Grid knew or had reason to know children were trespassing.
- The Hills (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
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 have a duty of care under the attractive nuisance doctrine, precluding summary judgment, when circumstantial evidence suggests the landowner had reason to know children were likely to trespass on its property and that a dangerous artificial condition existed thereon?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Flaherty
Yes. A landowner has a duty of care sufficient to survive a motion for summary judgment where disputed material facts exist from which a reasonable jury could find that the landowner had reason to know children were likely to trespass and had reason to know of a potentially dangerous condition. The court found that the plaintiffs raised genuine issues of material fact regarding National Grid's constructive knowledge. The property's location in a residential area, the regular inspections by a company employee, the monthly maintenance by a grounds-keeping crew, and the existence of a company policy for dealing with child trespassers collectively create a factual dispute. This evidence could allow a jury to conclude National Grid had 'reason to know' children were likely to trespass and that its agents should have discovered the protruding metal poles. The court emphasized that the legal standard is whether children are 'likely' to trespass, not whether the landowner has knowledge that they 'are' trespassing.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the evidentiary threshold for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment in attractive nuisance cases in Rhode Island. It establishes that circumstantial evidence, rather than direct proof of prior trespassing, is sufficient to create a jury question on the landowner's 'reason to know' about the likelihood of children entering the property. The ruling places a greater burden on owners of undeveloped land, particularly in residential areas, to inspect for and remedy potential hazards that might attract children. It reinforces the policy that the societal interest in protecting children from harm outweighs a landowner's unfettered use of their property.
Unlock the full brief for Hill v. National Grid