{"id":566,"date":"2014-01-21T08:00:08","date_gmt":"2014-01-21T08:00:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/?p=566"},"modified":"2023-07-25T17:20:19","modified_gmt":"2023-07-25T21:20:19","slug":"premises-liability-update-ri-supreme-court-holds-17-year-old-tresspasser-invoke-attractive-nuisance-doctrine","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/premises-liability\/premises-liability-update-ri-supreme-court-holds-17-year-old-tresspasser-invoke-attractive-nuisance-doctrine\/","title":{"rendered":"PREMISES LIABILITY UPDATE: RI Supreme Court Holds That 17-Year-Old Trespasser Cannot Invoke the Attractive Nuisance Doctrine"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Burton v. Rhode Island<\/i>, No. 2012-213-Appeal; 2012-268-Appeal<\/a>, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a 17-year-old trespasser could not invoke the attractive-nuisance doctrine because he could not establish that he did not realize the risk of coming in contact with sulfuric acid.\u00a0\"Aluminum-No-Trespassing-Sign-K-1157\"<\/a><\/p>\n

While the Court stopped short of holding that the attractive-nuisance doctrine can never be invoked by a 17-year-old, it devoted a significant portion of its decision to discussion of the origins of the doctrine and its application to \u201cyoung children.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 9.\u00a0 In the wake of Burton<\/i>, it will be difficult for a 17-year-old trespasser to establish that he or she is \u201ctoo young to appreciate the risk\u201d that caused his or her injury and thereby invoke the attractive-nuisance doctrine.<\/p>\n

In 1908, the Rhode Island School for the Feeble-Minded was founded as a small farm colony in rural Exeter, Rhode Island.\u00a0 See<\/i> http:\/\/www.theladdschool.com<\/a>.\u00a0 The school, which was later renamed the Ladd School, occupied nearly one square mile known as the Ladd Center consisting of 30 buildings, including dormitories, hospitals, a power plant and a fire station.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Since its closure in 1994, the Ladd Center has developed a reputation as being haunted.\u00a0 Burton<\/i>, at 1.<\/p>\n

In November 2005, after consuming several beers, 17-year-old Steven Burton and his four friends set out to explore the Ladd Center property.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Burton and his friends entered onto the property notwithstanding the posted \u201cNo Trespassing\u201d signs and approached an abandoned hospital building secured by plywood over the first and second floor windows, chains on the doors and metal grates that had been welded shut.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 2-3.\u00a0 Burton and his friends shimmied up a pipe and entered the building through a third-story window.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 3.\u00a0 While inside exploring the building, the group discovered a Styrofoam box inside an unlocked locker.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Inside the box were four clear gallon-sized glass bottles, each of which was filled with a clear liquid.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 To examine the bottles\u2019 contents, one of Burton\u2019s friends poured a small amount of the liquid onto a table.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 When they did so Burton and his friends realized the liquid was not water and had a syrup-like consistency.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

The group took three of the bottles, made their way to the first floor of the hospital and searched for an exit.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 When they were unable to find a passable exit, the group kicked out a portion of the plywood that covered the exterior door and, one by one, exited the building through the opening.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 As they slipped through the opening Burton\u2019s friend dropped one of the three bottles.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 3-4.\u00a0 When the bottle broke, the liquid, which was later determined to be sulfuric acid, splattered on Burton and his friend.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 Seconds later, Burton felt a burning sensation on his legs.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 4.\u00a0 He tore off his clothes and ran screaming for his friend\u2019s truck.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Nearly a year later, Burton filed suit against the State of Rhode Island, among others, alleging that it \u201cnegligently failed to inspect, repair and\/or maintain its premises free from defect and\/or dangerous condition.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>.\u00a0 After a bench trial, the Superior Court entered judgment in favor of the State, finding that Burton was a trespasser to whom the State owed no duty of care.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 4-5.\u00a0 Additionally, the trial justice ruled that the attractive-nuisance doctrine did not apply to the facts of Burton\u2019s case.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 5.<\/p>\n

On appeal, Burton conceded his status as a trespasser but argued that the trial justice erred in finding that the attractive-nuisance doctrine did not apply.\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 1, 5.\u00a0 Burton argued that he \u201cdid not fully realize the risk in taking the bottles of sulfuric acid.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 5-6.<\/p>\n

It has long been the law in Rhode Island that a landowner owes no duty of care to a trespasser except to refrain from injuring him wantonly or willfully after discovering his peril.\u00a0 Tantimonico v. Allendale Mutual Insurance Co.<\/i>, 637 A.2d 1056, 1057 (R.I. 1994) (citing Previte v. Wanskuck Co<\/i>., 90 A.2d 769, 770 (R.I. 1952)); see also<\/i> Hill v. National Grid<\/i>, 11 A.3d 110, 113 (R.I. 2011); Cain v. Johnson<\/i>, 755 A.2d 156, 160 (R.I. 2000); Bennett v. Napolitano<\/i>, 746 A.2d 138 (R.I. 2000); Wolf v. Nat\u2019l R.R. Passenger Corp.<\/i>, 697 A.2d 1082, 1085 (R.I. 1997).<\/p>\n

Consistent with Rhode Island law, other courts have made it clear that a trespasser \u201ccannot hold the owner to liability based upon negligence in failing to make the premises safe.\u201d\u00a0 Firfer v. United States<\/i>, 208 F.2d 524, 528 (D.C. Cir. 1953); see also<\/i> Bonney v. Canadian N.R. Co.<\/i>, 800 F.2d 274, 276 (1st Cir. 1986); Young v. Burton<\/i>, 567 F. Supp. 2d 121, 133 n.7 (D.D.C. 2008).\u00a0 Rather, a trespasser takes the premises as he or she finds it and assumes all risks inherent therein.\u00a0 Bonney<\/i>, 800 F.2d at 277.\u00a0 This rule is consistent with the common law\u2019s recognition that \u201c[p]roperty owners have a basic right to be free from liability to those who engage in self-destructive activity on their premises without permission.\u201d\u00a0 Tantimonico<\/i>, 637 A.2d at 1062.<\/p>\n

Although as a general matter a landowner owes no duty of care to a trespasser, Rhode Island recognizes one exception to that general rule.\u00a0 In Haddad v. First National Stores<\/i>, 280 A.2d 93 (R.I. 1971), the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of attractive nuisance as set forth in Restatement (Second) Torts \u00a7 339 (1965), which recognizes that in certain instances a landowner will owe a duty of care to trespassing children.\u00a0 In adopting the doctrine, the Court reasoned that \u201c[t]here must and should be an accommodation between the landowner\u2019s unrestricted right to use of his land and society\u2019s interest in the protection of the life and limb of its young.\u201d\u00a0 Id.<\/i> at 96.\u00a0 The Rhode Island Supreme Court later reaffirmed its holding in Kurczy v. Saint Joseph Veterans Ass\u2019n<\/i>, 820 A.2d 929, 945 (R.I. 2003).<\/p>\n

To establish a duty of care on the part of a landowner, a trespassing child must prove, inter alia<\/i>, that \u201cbecause of [his] youth\u201d he \u201c[did] not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it.\u201d\u00a0 Burton,<\/i> at 8 (citing Restatement (Second) Torts, \u00a7 339(c) at 197).\u00a0 Both the trial justice and the Supreme Court concluded that Burton \u201cwas old enough to appreciate the risk of breaking into an abandoned building and of transporting a substance he had reason to believe was hazardous.\u201d Id<\/i>. at 10.\u00a0 Therefore, the State owed no duty of care to Burton when he trespassed on the Ladd Center property.\u00a0 Id<\/i>.<\/p>\n

While the Supreme Court did not hold that the attractive-nuisance doctrine could never be invoked by a 17-year-old, it noted in its decision that \u201cin no case have we applied the attractive-nuisance doctrine to a child older than twelve years old.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 7.\u00a0 Burton\u2019s age was plainly significant to the Court\u2019s holding that Burton \u201cfailed to establish that he was too young<\/i> to appreciate the risk.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/i>. at 10 (emphasis added).<\/p>\n

Following Burton<\/i>, it will be difficult for a 17-year-old trespasser to demonstrate that he or she was \u201ctoo young to appreciate the risk\u201d of a dangerous condition and, without such a demonstration, the 17-year-old will be treated as a trespasser to whom a landowner owes no duty of care.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Burton v. Rhode Island, No. 2012-213-Appeal; 2012-268-Appeal, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held that a 17-year-old trespasser could not invoke the attractive-nuisance doctrine because he could not establish that he did not realize the risk of coming in contact with sulfuric…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[69],"tags":[70,14],"class_list":["post-566","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-premises-liability","tag-premises-liability","tag-rhode-island-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/566","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=566"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/566\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=566"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=566"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.apslaw.com\/on-appeal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=566"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}