Scurti v. City of New York
354 N.E.2d 794, 40 N.Y.2d 433, 387 N.Y.S.2d 55 (1976)
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to persons on their property, including those entering without permission, is governed by a single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, where foreseeability of the person's presence and the resulting harm is a primary measure of liability.
Facts:
- John Scurti, a 14-year-old high school student, entered a railroad yard owned by New York Connecting Railroad Co.
- Scurti entered the yard by going through one of several holes in a fence that separated the yard from Glen Ridge Park, a public park owned by the City of New York.
- Well-worn paths on both sides of the fence led to the openings, which were frequently used by children.
- Scurti climbed on top of a freight car and was electrocuted when he came into contact with a high-voltage catenary wire.
- In the four years prior to Scurti's death, four other teenagers had been electrocuted or seriously injured by the overhead high-tension wires in the same railroad yard.
- It was conceded that Scurti did not have permission to be in the railroad yard or to climb on the train.
Procedural Posture:
- John Scurti's father sued the New York Connecting Railroad Co. and other railroad entities, the MTA, LIRR, and the City of New York in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County (the state trial court).
- At the close of the plaintiff's case during the trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint against all defendants.
- The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (the state's intermediate appellate court).
- A divided Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's order dismissing the complaint.
- The plaintiff then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, the state's highest 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 landowner's duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances extend to individuals who enter the property without permission, making the foreseeability of their presence and the risk of harm key factors in determining liability?
Opinions:
Majority - Wachtler, J.
Yes. A landowner's liability to persons injured on their property is governed by a standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, regardless of the person's status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. The court officially adopts the rule from its companion case, Basso v. Miller, abolishing the old common-law categories. The fact that an individual enters without permission is no longer a complete bar to recovery but is one of several relevant circumstances in determining whether the landowner's conduct was reasonable. Other factors include the foreseeability of the person's presence (especially given the prior accidents and known trespassing by children), the location of the property, its accessibility, and the age of the injured party. In this case, the history of four prior, nearly identical accidents made the risk to trespassing children highly foreseeable to the railroad defendants who owned or operated the dangerous instrumentalities. Therefore, a jury could find they failed to exercise reasonable care. The complaint was properly dismissed against the MTA and LIRR, as they did not own or control the yard, train, or wires, and their diesel operations were unrelated to the electrocution.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Chief Judge Breitel
Yes, but liability should be determined under established principles for child trespassers, not a wholesale abandonment of common law rules. This abrupt departure from precedent is dangerous and disruptive to the law's stability. Applying the traditional rule for child trespassers articulated in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, the railroad defendants would not be liable. While the harm was foreseeable, the utility to the railroad of maintaining the active electric railway and the burden of eliminating the danger were too great compared to the risk. However, the City of New York could be found liable for its own negligence. The city owed a duty of ordinary care to park users against foreseeable danger, and it breached this duty by failing to maintain the fence, post warnings, or guard the area, despite knowing that children were consistently accessing the dangerous railroad property and that four similar accidents had already occurred.
Dissenting - Jasen, J.
No. The complaint should be dismissed against all defendants. Concurring with Chief Judge Breitel that the railroads are not liable, this opinion argues the City of New York is also not responsible as a matter of law. The city erected a fence and made efforts to maintain it, but children persistently cut holes to access the railroad property. To require the city to provide a completely childproof barrier, such as by stationing permanent guards, would impose an unreasonably burdensome duty. The city is not an insurer against injuries that occur on adjoining property.
Analysis:
This case is a landmark application of the rule established in Basso v. Miller, which abolished the common-law distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers in New York. The decision demonstrates a significant shift in tort law, moving the focus from the legal status of the injured person to a more flexible, fact-based inquiry into foreseeability and reasonableness. It establishes that landowners cannot rely on a plaintiff's status as a trespasser to automatically avoid liability, especially when they are aware of a pattern of trespassing and a highly dangerous condition on their property. This precedent significantly increases the potential liability of landowners and requires them to assess risks based on what is foreseeable, not just on who is permitted to be on their land.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Scurti v. City of New York (1976)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"