King v. Lennen
348 P.2d 98, 1 Cal. Rptr. 665, 53 Cal. 2d 340 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of land may be liable for harm to a trespassing child caused by a common and open artificial condition, such as a swimming pool, if the child is too young to appreciate the danger and the landowner fails to take reasonable precautions against it.
Facts:
- Defendants maintained an artificial swimming pool on their property which was not fully enclosed and was visible from the street.
- The pool's water was opaque, obscuring a sharp drop-off from 3.5 feet to 9 feet, and its slippery plastic walls lacked any ladders or handholds.
- Defendants knew or should have known that children were habitually attracted to their property by animals that roamed freely near the pool.
- Plaintiffs' 1.5-year-old son, Boyd, lived diagonally across the street.
- Over the five months preceding the accident, defendants' teenage daughter, a babysitter for Boyd, regularly brought him to the defendants' property to play near the pool and animals.
- Defendants knew or should have known their daughter brought Boyd to the property and that he had become attracted to the pool area.
- Boyd was found drowned in the pool at a time when no adults were present on the property.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a wrongful death action against defendants in the trial court.
- Defendants filed a general demurrer to the complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid claim.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
- A final judgment of dismissal was entered in favor of the defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed the judgment to the California 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 complaint state a cause of action for wrongful death against a landowner where a 1.5-year-old trespassing child, unable to appreciate the danger, drowned in the landowner's residential swimming pool?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibson, C. J.
Yes. A complaint states a cause of action for wrongful death against a landowner where a 1.5-year-old trespassing child, unable to appreciate the danger, drowned in the landowner's residential swimming pool. The court adopted the rule from Section 339 of the Restatement of Torts, which focuses on the child's subjective ability to appreciate danger rather than the objective nature of the condition. The prior California rule, which treated common dangers like bodies of water as non-actionable as a matter of law, is explicitly disapproved. The key inquiry is not whether a condition is common, but whether its dangers are fully understood by the particular child. In this case, it is obvious that a 1.5-year-old child cannot appreciate the risk of drowning, and the complaint properly alleged all elements of the Restatement test, including the owner's knowledge of trespassing children and the slight utility of the pool compared to the risk involved.
Dissenting - Spence, J.
No. The complaint does not state a cause of action and should be dismissed. The dissent argues that the court should adhere to the long-standing precedent that a landowner is not liable for injuries to a trespassing child from a risk that is both 'common and obvious,' such as a swimming pool. These former cases provided certainty in the law and prevented imposing an unjust burden on landowners. By disapproving these cases, the majority throws the law into a state of confusion, creating irreconcilable results with other recent decisions and abandoning a salutary and reasonable rule.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant shift in California premises liability law, moving away from a rigid, categorical approach to a more modern, fact-sensitive analysis for child trespasser cases. By formally adopting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 and disapproving prior cases that barred recovery for 'common dangers' like bodies of water, the court centered the legal inquiry on the specific child's ability to appreciate the risk. This precedent makes it substantially more difficult for landowners to have such cases dismissed on demurrer, shifting the determination of liability from a question of law to a question of fact for the jury. Consequently, it expanded the duty of care owed by property owners to protect very young children from common household hazards like swimming pools.
