McColley v. Edison Corp. Center
697 A.2d 149, 303 N.J. Super. 420, 1997 N.J. Super. LEXIS 339 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to minor trespassers injured by dangerous artificial conditions on their property if they know children are likely to trespass and the risk of serious harm outweighs the burden of eliminating the danger, even if the minor is traditionally classified as a trespasser.
Facts:
- Fourteen-year-old Steven McColley frequently rode his motorized bike on private property in Edison, New Jersey.
- Steven and other young people had been riding motorbikes on the property, including the specific path where the accident occurred, for about two years prior to the incident.
- A wire cable was strung approximately two-and-one-half feet from the ground across the end of a paved roadway on the property, where a dirt road began.
- Until the day of Steven's accident, he and his companions had never encountered a wire across the path, nor had they been warned to stay off the property or road.
- The wire was not visible from a moving motorbike, and defendants were aware that youngsters were riding motorbikes in the area.
- The property was owned or controlled by Edison Corporate Center, Garden Homes Management, and The Kaplan Organization until May 19, 1992.
- On May 19, 1992, Bankers Trust took title to the property by deed in lieu of foreclosure and immediately transferred title to its wholly owned subsidiary, Edison Property Corporation, which held title on the day of the accident.
- Steven McColley was caught by the wire cable while riding his motorized bike on the property, suffering injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Steven McColley and Susan McColley filed a complaint against defendants Edison Corporate Center, Garden Homes Management, The Kaplan Organization, Bankers Trust, and Edison Property Corporation for injuries Steven suffered.
- The motion judge (trial court) granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against all defendants, concluding that Steven was a trespasser to whom no duty was owed.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgments, which was denied.
- Plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the denial of reconsideration and the summary judgments to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, against all defendants (appellees).
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 14-year-old trespasser injured by a nearly invisible wire cable strung across a known path on private property, thereby precluding summary judgment for the landowners?
Opinions:
Majority - Wecker, J.S.C.
No, a landowner may owe a duty of care to a minor trespasser injured by an artificial condition, and summary judgment was improperly granted. The court found that the motion judge erred by concluding no duty was owed to Steven and that material questions of fact existed regarding the defendants' duty and breach. While traditional common law classifies individuals on property as business invitees, licensees, or trespassers, New Jersey's Supreme Court has moved toward a more flexible approach based on general principles of tort liability and 'basic fairness' under all circumstances. Even under traditional analysis, an adult trespasser is entitled to a warning of a serious artificial danger, which the wire cable constituted. Furthermore, New Jersey follows the infant-trespasser exception of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, which outlines conditions under which a landowner is liable for harm to trespassing children by an artificial condition. Steven's age (14) does not automatically preclude § 339 liability, as it is just one factor among the nature of the risk and his ability to appreciate it. The court determined that material questions of fact, such as the defendants' knowledge of motorbiking on the property, the visibility of the wire, and who placed it, needed to be resolved by a jury. The court also noted that Bankers Trust, as a parent corporation, could be liable if it exercised control over the property, especially given post-accident evidence that it authorized repairs to the cable. Therefore, the case should proceed to trial for a jury to determine whether any defendant breached a duty to Steven, with the trial judge defining the applicable duty, possibly in general negligence terms if traditional classifications do not fit.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the New Jersey Supreme Court's movement away from rigid common law classifications for premises liability (trespasser, licensee, invitee) towards a more flexible, fact-specific analysis grounded in general negligence principles of foreseeability and fairness. It significantly clarifies the application of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 concerning infant trespassers, emphasizing that a minor's age is only one factor in determining their appreciation of risk. The decision also highlights that summary judgment is often inappropriate in premises liability cases involving children where genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the landowner's knowledge, the dangerousness of the condition, and the minor's ability to perceive the risk.
