Skelton v. Twin County Rural Elec. Ass'n
611 So. 2d 931, 1993 WL 2689 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owes a social guest (licensee) only the duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury and to warn of known, hidden dangers. The attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to natural conditions like trees, and a landowner is not liable for injuries sustained by a child licensee from an open and obvious danger, particularly when the child understood the risk and was warned against the activity.
Facts:
- Jimmy and Jennie Wilkerson rented a house from Twin County Rural Electric Association.
- A three-foot metal pipe, which secured a television antenna guy wire, was located in the backyard underneath a pecan tree.
- Kristoffer Skelton, a nine-year-old neighbor, and the Wilkerson children frequently played together in the yard.
- The Wilkersons had repeatedly told Skelton and their own children not to climb the trees in their yard.
- Skelton admitted he knew he was not supposed to climb the trees, knew the pipe was underneath the tree, and knew it could hurt him if he fell on it.
- On August 13, 1987, while playing a game of chase with the other children, Skelton climbed the pecan tree.
- To avoid being caught by Mrs. Wilkerson, the children would climb out of the tree when she came outside and return when she went back inside.
- Skelton slipped from a branch, fell onto the metal pipe, and sustained a severe injury to his mouth.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristoffer Skelton, through his mother, sued the Wilkersons and their landlord, Twin County Rural Electric Association, in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Mississippi.
- The defendants each filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Skelton under the circumstances.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, finding that Skelton was a licensee, the pipe was not a hidden danger, and the tree was not an attractive nuisance.
- Skelton, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
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 have a duty to protect a nine-year-old licensee from injury resulting from an open and obvious condition on the land, when the child was specifically warned not to engage in the activity that caused the injury and admitted to knowing the activity was forbidden?
Opinions:
Majority - Prather, Justice
No. A landowner does not have a duty to protect a licensee from an open and obvious danger when the licensee is aware of the risk. As a social guest, Skelton was a licensee, to whom the Wilkersons owed only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury and to warn of hidden perils. The metal pipe was an open and obvious condition, not a hidden danger or a trap. Furthermore, Skelton admitted that he knew he was forbidden from climbing the trees and that he was aware of the pipe's presence and the danger it posed. The attractive nuisance doctrine is inapplicable because it is reserved for inherently dangerous, artificial instrumentalities, not for natural conditions like a tree. Since there was no breach of the limited duty owed to a licensee, summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.
Dissenting - Banks, Justice
Yes. A landowner's duty should be determined by a standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, not by rigid and outdated common-law classifications of licensee and invitee. The dissent argues for abolishing the licensee-invitee distinction in favor of a general negligence standard that focuses on the foreseeability of harm. Under this modern approach, a jury should determine whether it was foreseeable that a nine-year-old child would disobey instructions and climb the tree, and whether the defendants acted reasonably to prevent injury from the unprotected pipe. The majority's application of the common-law rule produces a harsh result that is contrary to modern social mores and humanitarian values.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms Mississippi's adherence to the traditional common-law categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser in premises liability law, even in cases involving child injuries. The decision clarifies that natural objects like trees will not be considered attractive nuisances, limiting the doctrine's application to artificial conditions. The court's focus on the child's subjective knowledge of the rule and the danger demonstrates that even a minor's awareness of risk can defeat a claim, reinforcing that an open and obvious danger generally negates a landowner's duty to a licensee. The strong dissent, however, signals the ongoing jurisprudential conflict between these traditional rules and the modern trend toward a unified standard of reasonable care.
