Osterman v. Peters
1971 Md. LEXIS 1236, 272 A.2d 21, 260 Md. 313 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In Maryland, a landowner owes no duty to a trespasser, including a child, except to abstain from willful or wanton misconduct or entrapment. A landowner's violation of a safety statute, such as a pool fencing ordinance, does not create a duty of care or a right of action for a trespasser.
Facts:
- Mr. and Mrs. Barry J. Peters owned a property with a swimming pool.
- On May 9, the Peters family moved out of their house, leaving the swimming pool filled with water for the incoming new owners.
- The pool was enclosed by a fence, but the gate was not self-latching and was instead kept closed by a stone placed in front of it.
- The local Montgomery County Code required private pools to be fenced and for gates to have self-closing and self-latching devices.
- On May 12, four-and-a-half-year-old Lawrence Bruce Osterman and a friend went onto the vacant Peters property to retrieve a ball.
- The boys pushed aside the stone, opened the gate to the pool area, and entered.
- Lawrence Osterman fell into the swimming pool and drowned.
Procedural Posture:
- Lawrence Osterman's father sued Mr. and Mrs. Peters in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for damages.
- The case was tried before a judge and jury.
- At the end of the entire case, the Peters (defendants) made a motion for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the motion for a directed verdict and entered judgment in favor of the Peters.
- Dr. Osterman (plaintiff) appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
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's duty of care to a trespassing child extend beyond abstaining from willful or wanton misconduct when the landowner has violated a local ordinance requiring safety fencing around a swimming pool?
Opinions:
Majority - Singley, J.
No. A landowner's duty to a trespassing child is limited to abstaining from willful or wanton misconduct or entrapment, and this standard is not elevated by the violation of a local safety ordinance. The court reasoned that Maryland is one of the few states that has consistently rejected the doctrine of attractive nuisance. The child's young age is not a basis for an exception, as prior cases have denied recovery for children as young as three. The court found that leaving a pool filled was not willful or wanton misconduct and that the violation of the fencing ordinance, while potentially evidence of negligence, does not create a duty towards a person who has no right to be on the property. Citing 'State v. Longeley', the court affirmed that such ordinances are for the benefit of the public, and a trespasser cannot acquire a right of action from the mere violation of the statute.
Analysis:
This decision firmly entrenches Maryland's minority position rejecting the attractive nuisance doctrine, creating a high bar for plaintiffs in cases involving injuries to trespassing children. The court clarifies that even a clear violation of a public safety statute designed to prevent the very harm that occurred does not create a duty of care towards a trespasser. The opinion signals that any change to this harsh, long-standing rule must come from the legislature, not through judicial reinterpretation, solidifying a legal landscape in Maryland that is highly protective of landowners against claims by trespassers.
Unlock the full brief for Osterman v. Peters