Pridgen v. Boston Housing Authority
70 A.L.R. 3d 1106, 308 N.E.2d 467, 364 Mass. 696 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property owner owes a duty of reasonable care to a trespasser who has become helplessly trapped on the premises to the owner's knowledge, and this duty includes the obligation to take reasonable affirmative action to prevent injury or further injury.
Facts:
- Joseph Pridgen, an 11-year-old boy, lived in a housing project owned by the Boston Housing Authority (the authority).
- On June 28, 1966, Joseph and two friends entered an elevator in another building within the project.
- The boys climbed through an escape hatch in the elevator's ceiling and got onto the roof of the elevator car.
- While on top of the car, Joseph slipped into the elevator shaft and became trapped on metal brackets, unable to move.
- Joseph's mother, Minnie Lee Pridgen, arrived and found William Carney, an authority employee, in the hallway.
- Mrs. Pridgen pleaded with Carney for help and asked him to turn off the elevator's power, but he took no action.
- After Mrs. Pridgen's plea but before a police officer arrived and ordered Carney to act, the elevator moved downward and crushed Joseph, causing severe injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Pridgen and his mother, Minnie Lee Pridgen, sued the Boston Housing Authority, Consolidated Elevator Company, and Westinghouse Electric Corporation in a Massachusetts trial court for personal injury and consequential damages.
- At the close of evidence, the trial judge directed verdicts in favor of defendants Westinghouse and Consolidated on all counts.
- The judge also directed verdicts for the Boston Housing Authority on the counts alleging wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct.
- The jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs against the Boston Housing Authority on the negligence counts.
- On a motion from the authority, the trial judge set aside the jury's verdicts under leave reserved and entered verdicts for the authority.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, excepting to the trial judge's rulings.
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 property owner owe a duty of reasonable care, including a duty to take affirmative action, to a known trespasser who becomes helplessly trapped in a position of peril on the owner's property?
Opinions:
Majority - Quirico, J.
Yes. A property owner owes a common duty of reasonable care to a trespasser who has become helplessly trapped on the premises to the owner's knowledge. This duty requires the owner to take reasonable affirmative steps to prevent harm. The court explicitly rejects the traditional common law distinction between misfeasance (negligent action) and nonfeasance (failure to act) in this context. It is illogical and unjust to hold a landowner liable for an affirmative act that harms a trapped trespasser but grant immunity for a failure to take a simple, life-saving action like turning off a power switch. This new rule reflects evolving societal standards of concern for individual safety and extends the duty of reasonable care, previously applied only to lawful visitors, to this specific class of imperiled trespassers. Based on the evidence, a jury could reasonably find that the authority's employee was negligent in failing to act once he knew of Joseph's perilous situation and that this failure occurred within the scope of his employment, thus making the authority liable.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant evolution in Massachusetts premises liability law, creating an important exception to the traditional rule that a landowner owes a trespasser only a duty to refrain from wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct. By imposing an affirmative duty to act on behalf of a known, helpless trespasser, the court effectively discarded the archaic distinction between misfeasance and nonfeasance in these circumstances. This ruling established a new precedent requiring landowners to take reasonable, affirmative steps to prevent injury to those in peril on their property, regardless of their status as a trespasser. The case signals a broader trend toward basing liability on foreseeability and reasonableness rather than on rigid, status-based categories.
Unlock the full brief for Pridgen v. Boston Housing Authority