Merrill v. Central Maine Power Co.
628 A.2d 1062 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is not liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine for harm to a trespassing child if the child, despite their youth, was aware of the dangerous condition and appreciated the risk involved.
Facts:
- On June 13, 1976, Douglas Merrill, then nine years old, entered property owned by Central Maine Power Company (CMP) to fish in a river.
- After catching an eel, Merrill walked to a nearby CMP electrical sub-station.
- The sub-station was enclosed by a fence, which Merrill climbed.
- Merrill then attempted to cook the eel by leaning over the fence and placing it on a live electrical wire.
- He received a severe electric shock and was badly burned.
- In a later deposition, Merrill admitted that at the time of the incident, he knew the fence's purpose was to keep people out.
- Merrill also admitted he knew that electricity could burn and hurt him, and that he was careful not to touch the wire himself.
Procedural Posture:
- Douglas Merrill sued Central Maine Power Company (CMP) in the Superior Court of York County, a state trial court.
- Merrill's complaint alleged a cause of action under the theory of attractive nuisance, among others.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of CMP.
- The trial court found that Merrill appreciated the risk at the time of the accident and that electrical sub-stations are not attractive nuisances as a matter of law.
- Merrill, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
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 the attractive nuisance doctrine impose liability on a landowner for injuries to a trespassing child when the child understood and appreciated the risk posed by the artificial condition on the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Rudman, Justice.
No. The attractive nuisance doctrine does not impose liability on a landowner if the trespassing child discovers the condition and realizes the risk involved. The court strictly applies the five-part test for attractive nuisance found in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339. The third element of this test requires that 'the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it.' The doctrine's purpose is to protect children who, due to immaturity, are unable to protect themselves. If a child is fully aware of a condition and understands the risk, they are in no better legal position than an adult with similar knowledge. Here, Merrill's own deposition testimony, where he admitted knowing electricity was dangerous and that his idea was 'dumb,' established that he appreciated the risk. Since Merrill failed to generate a genuine issue of material fact on this essential element of his claim, summary judgment for CMP was proper.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a strict interpretation of the attractive nuisance doctrine, specifically focusing on the child's subjective appreciation of the risk. It establishes that a child's own admissions about understanding a danger can be sufficient to defeat an attractive nuisance claim at the summary judgment stage. The ruling narrows the doctrine's application, clarifying that it protects children who lack the capacity to understand a risk, not those who understand a risk but choose to engage with it anyway. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in such cases if there is clear evidence they were aware of the potential harm, regardless of their age.
