Hostick v. Hall Ex Rel. Hall
386 P.2d 758 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business owner who invites children onto the premises must take precautions dictated by ordinary care to protect them from injury by any instrumentality on the premises which is likely to attract them and subject them to dangers a reasonably prudent person would anticipate.
Facts:
- Betty Jo Hall, a 17-month-old child, accompanied her mother to the Speed Queen Coin-O-Matic laundry, a business open to the public.
- It was a common custom for parents to bring their small children with them to this laundromat, a fact known to the owner.
- The laundromat contained a sink for starching clothes, with water supplied directly from a boiler, making it significantly hotter than normal tap water.
- The faucets were located on the side of the sink, only nine inches from the front edge, rather than on the back.
- A chair was positioned next to the sink, which was otherwise too high for a child of Hall's age to reach.
- While her mother was attending to laundry, Betty Jo Hall climbed onto the chair, turned the easily operated hot water faucet, and was severely burned by the scalding water.
Procedural Posture:
- Betty Jo Hall, by her parent, sued the owner of the Speed Queen Coin-O-Matic laundry in the trial court for damages from her injuries.
- The defendant filed a demurrer to the plaintiff's petition, which the trial court overruled.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant filed a demurrer to the evidence, which the trial court also overruled.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, awarding damages.
- The defendant appealed the judgment to this 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 business owner breach the duty of reasonable care owed to a child invitee by maintaining an unguarded sink with an easily accessible faucet that emits scalding hot water, when a chair is nearby and it is known that children frequently visit the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A business owner breaches the duty of reasonable care under these circumstances. The court reasoned that while the sink itself was not inherently dangerous, the combination of several factors created a foreseeable hazard for a child invitee. These factors included the presence of the chair providing access, the placement of the easily turned faucet on the side of the sink, and the extremely hot water. Because the owner knew children frequented the premises, he had a duty to take reasonable precautions against such a foreseeable danger. The court held that Betty Jo Hall, as a customer's child, was an invitee to whom the owner owed a duty of reasonable care, and the negligence of her mother could not be imputed to her. The evidence was sufficient for a jury to determine that the defendant failed to exercise the required level of care to keep the premises reasonably safe for child invitees.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a business owner's duty to child invitees, extending it beyond the traditional 'attractive nuisance' doctrine which typically applies to trespassers. The court establishes that liability can arise from a combination of ordinary, non-defective items (a sink and a chair) that together create a foreseeable risk to children. This precedent heightens the standard of care for businesses that are aware of the presence of children, requiring them to assess potential dangers from a child's perspective. Future cases involving injuries to children on business premises will likely focus on the totality of the circumstances and foreseeability, rather than whether a single object was inherently dangerous or defective.
