United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt
258 U.S. 268 (1922)
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 injuries to trespassing children unless the specific dangerous condition that caused the injury was also the 'allurement' or 'invitation' that induced the children to enter the property in the first place.
Facts:
- United Zinc & Chemical Co. (Petitioner) owned a 20-acre tract of land that formerly housed a chemical plant.
- In 1910, the company dismantled the plant but left an open basement and cellar on the unfenced property.
- By July 1916, water had accumulated in the cellar, creating a pool that appeared clear but was dangerously poisoned with sulphuric acid and zinc sulphate, a fact known to the company.
- A travelled way passed within 100 to 120 feet of the pool of water.
- The respondents' family was travelling and had encamped at some distance from the property.
- On July 27, 1916, the respondents' two sons, aged 8 and 11, went onto the company's land, entered the pool, were poisoned, and died.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of the deceased children (respondents) sued the United Zinc & Chemical Co. (petitioner) in federal district court for wrongful death.
- A jury returned a verdict in favor of the parents, and the trial court entered a judgment against the company.
- The company, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the district court.
- The United Zinc & Chemical Co. successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
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 trespassing children from a dangerous condition on the property if there is no evidence that the dangerous condition is what attracted the children to enter the land?
Opinions:
Majority - Holmes
No. A landowner's duty to trespassing children under the attractive nuisance doctrine arises only when the object that causes injury is also the specific 'bait' that lures them onto the property. The Court reasoned that infants have no greater right to go upon other people's land than adults, and landowners generally have no duty to prepare for their safety. The attractive nuisance doctrine is a narrow exception that treats a highly alluring object as an implied invitation, but the duty does not begin unless that object is the reason for the trespass. In this case, there was no evidence that the children saw the pool from outside the property or that it was the inducement for them to enter the land; therefore, the company owed them no duty.
Dissenting - Clarke
Yes. A landowner who places a dangerous and attractive agency on their land, where children are likely to go, should be held liable for injuries. The dissent argued that the majority was abandoning the established 'Humane Doctrine' from cases like Railroad Co. v. Stout, which held that the attractiveness of the dangerous condition itself acts as an invitation that purges the technical trespass. Given that the poison pool looked like an attractive swimming hole on unfenced land near a town, it created a question for the jury as to whether the company should have anticipated children would be drawn to it and taken reasonable precautions. The dissent contended that the majority was improperly overturning nearly 50 years of precedent.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the application of the attractive nuisance doctrine by adding a strict causation requirement. It shifts the focus from the general foreseeability of child trespassers to the specific question of what induced the trespass. By requiring the dangerous condition itself to be the 'lure', the Court made it more difficult for plaintiffs to recover, as they must prove the child entered the property because of the specific hazard. This ruling established a more landowner-protective standard and clarified that the mere existence of a hazard does not automatically create a duty to trespassing children who discover it after entering the land for other reasons.
Unlock the full brief for United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt