Quick Summary
Rickey G. Bennett (plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against Jeffrey and Stacey Stanley (defendants) following the drowning deaths of his wife and stepson in the Stanleys’ pool. The issue presented was whether property owners owe a duty of care to child trespassers under the attractive nuisance doctrine.
The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine, reversing lower court rulings and remanding for further proceedings. The Court reasoned that children require greater protection due to their limited ability to recognize danger.
Facts of the Case
Rickey G. Bennett (plaintiff) faced a tragic situation when he discovered his two young daughters crying and was informed that his wife, Cher D. Bennett, and stepson, Chance C. Lattea, were ‘drowning in the water.’
The two were found unconscious in the swimming pool owned by their neighbors, Jeffrey and Stacey Stanley (defendants), and subsequently died.
The Stanleys had moved into a home with an unused swimming pool, which they drained once but later allowed to fill with rainwater. They also removed a tarp and fencing around the pool, which became pond-like and attracted the attention of the Bennett children.
The Bennetts lived next door to the Stanleys and were aware of the pool’s condition.
Despite Rickey Bennett warning his children to stay away from the pool, his three-year-old daughter reported that she and her brother had been playing near it on the day of the accident.
The sheriff’s department concluded that Chance fell into the pool while looking at frogs, and his mother drowned attempting to save him.
Rickey Bennett, as administrator of the estates of Cher and Chance and as custodial parent of Kyleigh, filed a wrongful death and personal injury suit against the Stanleys, alleging negligence in maintaining the pool and creating an unreasonable risk of harm.
Procedural History
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Stanleys, finding that Chance and Cher were trespassers on the property and that the Stanleys only owed a duty to refrain from wanton and willful misconduct.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, agreeing that there was no evidence of wanton and willful misconduct by the Stanleys.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
- Whether a property owner owes a duty of care to a child trespasser.
- Whether this extends to an adult attempting to rescue a child from an attractive nuisance.
Rule of Law
The Court adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine as set forth in Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965), Section 339, which outlines the duty a property owner owes to child trespassers.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that children are entitled to a greater degree of protection due to their inability to foresee and avoid dangers. The Court adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine, balancing the protection of children with property owners’ rights.
It was determined that a possessor of land may be liable if they know or have reason to know children are likely to trespass, the condition poses an unreasonable risk, the children do not realize this risk, and if reasonable care is not taken to eliminate the danger.
In this case, the foreseeability of one of the Bennett children entering onto the Stanley property was a genuine issue of fact.
The Court also held that if Cher Bennett entered the property to rescue her son from an attractive nuisance, then she was owed a duty of ordinary care by the Stanleys.
Conclusion
The Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Dissenting Opinions
Some justices dissented, arguing that the attractive nuisance doctrine was not properly before the court as the Bennetts had waived their right to pursue it. They believed that if such a significant change in law was to be made, it should be done in a case where the issue was squarely before the court.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine from Restatement of Torts, Section 339, which establishes a landowner’s duty to child trespassers.
- The Court recognized a need for greater protection for children due to their lack of judgment concerning potential dangers.
- An adult rescuer may assume the status of a child for purposes of applying the attractive nuisance doctrine if attempting to save a child from danger.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What constitutes an 'attractive nuisance' and how does it affect premises liability?
An attractive nuisance refers to a hazardous condition on a property that is likely to attract children who are unable to appreciate the risk it poses, thus potentially leading to injury. Property owners may be held liable if they fail to take reasonable steps to secure the danger or warn of its presence.
- For example: An unfenced construction site with accessible machinery near a residential area could be considered an attractive nuisance if children play there and injure themselves on the equipment.
How does tort law provide protection for rescuers in danger situations?
Tort law often recognizes the ‘rescue doctrine,’ which potentially shields rescuers from liability when they act to save others from harm and injure themselves or cause property damage in the process. This aims to avoid deterring acts of bravery and altruism.
- For example: A passerby who breaks a homeowner’s window to rescue a child shouting for help inside the burning house is typically not held liable for the property damage.
How do courts assess a landowner's duty of care regarding known dangers on their property?
Courts evaluate a landowner’s duty of care by analyzing whether the owner knew of the danger, if it was foreseeable that someone could be harmed, and if they took reasonable steps to prevent harm. A failure in these duties may lead to negligence claims.
- For example: If a homeowner is aware of a broken railing on their deck but fails to repair it or warn guests, resulting in an injury, they may be held liable for negligence.
References
Was this case brief helpful?