OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF LAND

Question 1

RYALS V. UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. (SWITCH RACK CASE)

Answer 1

Plaintiffs were trespassing on defendant’s property to steal (trespass with criminal intent) and one of plaintiffs died – defendant’s only duty of care was to not intentionally harm the trespassers, and they did not do so, so they are not liable

Question 2

MERRILL V. CENTRAL MAINE POWER CO. (EEL CASE)

Answer 2

Plaintiff (9 year old boy) placed eel on electrical wire of defendants and was burned – attractive nuisance could be used here, but plaintiff knew the risks, so attractive nuisance not possible, and defendants not liable

Question 3

KNORPP V. HALE (TREE CUTTING CASE)

Answer 3

Plaintiff’s son was killed while cutting down tree on defendant’s property – son was a licensee on property, so lesser standard of care, and defendant’s acted to satisfy that standard of care, so no liability

Question 4

NELSON V. FREELAND (BUSINESSMAN CASE)

Answer 4

Plaintiff tripped over stick on defendant’s property on the way to business meeting together – court discarded trichotomy and used “reasonable care in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of lawful visitors.” which could make defendant liable