Duties of Owners and Occupiers

Question 1

Robert Addie and Sons v. Dumbreck

Answer 1

i. Facts
Defendant owned a mine shaft device in which a motor was placed at the mouth of the mine, an endless cable running from the mine to a wheel that was improperly guarded; machinery was attractive to children, who played on it frequently; defendant frequently told adults and children to get off land, but such requests were insufficient; plaintiff’s infant decedent playing on wheel when defendant’s motor operator turned motor on; decedent pulled into device and killed
ii. Issues
1) What kind of duty if any did the D owe P decedent
iii. Holding
1) P is merely a trespasser therefore no duty and no recovery
a) There are only three classes of persons on another’s property, and the p is not an invitee or licensee
i) Express invitees, that we strictly invited
A. landowner must take all reasonable precautions to ensure the premises are safe from known or unknown defects
ii) licensees, who are given leave or license by the landowner to enter and use the land
A. The landowner does not have a duty to ensure the premises are safe, but must not create a trap or allow a known, hidden danger to exist on the property.
iii) Trespassers, who have no permission by the landowner to use the land.
A. the landowner has no duty to take reasonable care to provide protection even from hidden dangers, but is only liable for willful harm involving something greater than the absence of reasonable care.
b) Halsham
i) D not at fault for others failure to heed warnings: gap in the hedge does not grant permission to enter. Ineffective fencing does not permit an inference that the P was permitted on his property
ii) Permission to enter may have been implied if the D posted “no trespassing” sign, and persons continued to enter the land but the D did nothing to stop them
iii) P failed to prove the D permitted the P on the property.
iv. Notes
1) Extremely confusing case
a) Invitee v. licensee
2) TL
a) “ought to be known” language in the case is erroneous, that means for any invitee I need to know all the traps of the house.
3) There is a strong argument that the P was a licensee.
a) If you ignore the trespasser often enough they transfer from trespassers to licensers.

Question 2

Gould v. DeBeve

Answer 2

i. Facts
1) 2 yo infant plaintiff and mother staying with friend in violation of friend’s apartment lease;; hot day, mother and friend left window open; plaintiff fell out of window (due to faulty screen) and injured self when landed
ii. Issues
1) Did the D owe a duty to P even if he were a trespasser?
iii. Holding
1) Yes the D’s conduct was willful and wanton in that it ignored statutory obligation to replace the defective screen
a) Friend requested that it be fixed and was ignored
b) Not all trespassers the same (infants v. poachers)
iv. Notes