Kefee v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
1875 Minn. LEXIS 94, 21 Minn. 207 (1875)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner who maintains on their property a dangerous condition that is attractive to young children owes a duty of ordinary care to protect trespassing children from that danger if the landowner knows or should know that children are likely to trespass and be harmed by it.
Facts:
- A defendant railroad company maintained a turntable on its property.
- The turntable was located in an open, public, and frequented place.
- The turntable was left unfastened and could be easily put into motion by young children.
- When in motion, the turntable was dangerous to young children, who could not appreciate the risk.
- The defendant knew the turntable was very attractive to young children and that many children were in the habit of going upon it to play.
- The plaintiff, a young child, was attracted to the turntable and was injured while playing on it.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff sued the defendant railroad company in the trial court to recover for injuries sustained on the defendant's turntable.
- The defendant successfully moved to have the plaintiff's complaint dismissed by the trial court, which ruled that the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff as a trespasser.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal of the case 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 landowner owe a duty of care to a trespassing child who is injured by a dangerous and attractive condition on the property, when the landowner knows that children are in the habit of trespassing and playing with that condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, J.
Yes. A landowner owes a duty of care to a trespassing child under these circumstances. The court reasoned that the plaintiff was not a mere voluntary trespasser but was induced to come upon the property by the defendant's own conduct. The unfastened turntable acted as an allurement or temptation, which, to a child of tender years, is the equivalent of an express invitation to an adult. Because the defendant knew the turntable was attractive and dangerous to children and knew they frequented the area, it knowingly allured them into a hidden danger or a 'trap.' Having created this foreseeable risk and temptation, the defendant was bound to use ordinary care to protect the children from the danger into which they were led.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational articulation of the 'attractive nuisance' doctrine, creating a significant exception to the traditional common law rule that landowners owe no duty of care to trespassers. The decision shifts the legal focus from the child's status as a trespasser to the landowner's conduct in creating a foreseeable risk of harm to children through an alluring and dangerous condition. This precedent has profoundly influenced American tort law, establishing that a landowner's duty is heightened when their property contains features that might foreseeably attract and injure children who are too young to appreciate the danger.
