Humphrey v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.
139 A. 440, 56 A.L.R. 1011, 100 Vt. 414 (1927)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The legal defense that an injured party was a trespasser is personal to the owner of the land and cannot be used by a third party to shield itself from liability for its own negligence.
Facts:
- The defendant, an electric company, obtained permission from a landowner named Thomas to run a temporary high-voltage transmission line across his property.
- In constructing the line, the defendant's servants attached a wire to a cross-arm on a tree near a barbed wire fence.
- On October 28, 1925, a tie wire broke, causing the live 11,000-volt feed wire to fall onto the barbed wire fence, charging it with a deadly current.
- The plaintiff and a companion, Brothers, were hunting on Thomas's land, for which the court assumed they were trespassers.
- While attempting to cross the fence, both men came into contact with the electrified wire.
- Brothers was killed instantly, and the plaintiff sustained severe personal injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff brought a tort action against the defendant electric company in the trial court to recover for personal injuries.
- At the trial, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
- The plaintiff excepted to the ruling and appealed to the state's highest 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 plaintiff's status as a trespasser on a third party's land preclude them from recovering for injuries caused by the negligence of a defendant who is not the landowner?
Opinions:
Majority - Powers, J.
No, a plaintiff's status as a trespasser on a third party's land does not, ipso facto, preclude them from recovering for injuries caused by the defendant's negligence. The rule exempting a landowner from liability to a trespasser for the condition of the premises is a protection personal to the landowner, rooted in the historical sanctity of property rights. A trespass is an injury to possession, and only the one whose possession is disturbed (the landowner) can assert the unlawful invasion as a defense. A third-party defendant, whose own property rights were not violated, cannot use the plaintiff's trespass against the landowner as a shield for its own negligent conduct. Given the highly dangerous nature of electricity, those who distribute it owe a duty of care to all persons whose injuries could be reasonably foreseen, regardless of their technical status on the land where the injury occurs.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant departure from older, property-centric tort principles, aligning the jurisdiction with a more modern view of duty and negligence. It establishes that the defense of trespass is personal to the landowner and cannot be invoked by a third party whose own rights were not invaded. The ruling expands the scope of duty for those engaged in ultrahazardous activities, requiring them to foresee potential harm to individuals even if they are technical trespassers on another's property. This precedent effectively prevents negligent third parties from escaping liability by exploiting a victim's unrelated and technical legal status.
