Opinion ID: 603521
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cases Relied Upon By Plaintiff

Text: 13 In his brief, plaintiff relies on four cases to support his argument that defendant owed him a duty of reasonable care. See Cummings v. Borough of Nazareth, 427 Pa. 14, 233 A.2d 874, 877 (1967); Cheslock v. Pittsburgh Rys., 363 Pa. 157, 69 A.2d 108, 111 (1949); Frederick v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co., 337 Pa. 136, 10 A.2d 576, 578 (1940); Bethay v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 271 Pa.Super. 366, 413 A.2d 710, 716 (1979). In two of these cases, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court cites Section 334 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) with apparent approval. See Cheslock, 69 A.2d at 111; Frederick, 10 A.2d at 578. Section 334 is entitled Activities Highly Dangerous to Constant Trespassers on Limited Area. It states: 14 § 334 Activities Highly Dangerous to Constant Trespassers on Limited Area 15 A possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area thereof, is subject to liability for bodily harm there caused to them by his failure to carry on an activity involving a risk of death or serious bodily harm with reasonable care for their safety. 16 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 334 (1965). 17 We note that Section 334 speaks in terms of activities carried on by a landowner. Plaintiff was injured when trespassing at defendant's closed and winterized swimming pool. We do not believe that by merely having such a pool on its premises defendant was carry[ing] on an activity under Section 334. Rather, we conclude that, under the Restatement, defendant's swimming pool was an artificial condition. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 335, 339 (1965). 18 Our conclusion that a pool is an artificial condition rather than an activity is supported by the numerous swimming pool cases brought under the attractive nuisance doctrine--Section 339 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965). See, e.g., Fletcher v. Hale, 548 So.2d 135, 136 (Ala.1989) (The swimming pool was an artificial condition upon [defendant's] land.). Section 339 is entitled Artificial Conditions Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children. (emphasis added). Accordingly, neither Cheslock nor Frederick, which involve activities rather than artificial conditions, supports plaintiff's argument. 19 The third case plaintiff relies upon to support his argument that defendant owed him a duty of reasonable care involves the duty of care owed by a landowner under Section 339 of the Restatement. See Bethay, 413 A.2d at 715 (citing Section 339 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965)). As we noted earlier, Section 339 does apply to artificial conditions such as swimming pools. In any event, Section 339 only applies if the trespasser is a child. It has no application to this case because plaintiff was an adult on the date of his accident. Accordingly, Bethay does not support plaintiff's argument. 20 Finally, plaintiff relies upon a case involving a landowner's duty to an invitee for injuries caused by a design defect in a swimming pool. See Cummings, 233 A.2d at 877. Because Cummings did not involve a trespasser, it does not support plaintiff's argument that defendant owed him a duty of reasonable care. 21 We have reviewed the cases cited by plaintiff and conclude that they do not support plaintiff's argument. When considered in context, the language plaintiff quotes from these cases is, at best, dicta regarding our issue--the duty owed by a landowner to a foreseeable adult trespasser for injuries caused by an artificial condition created or maintained by the landowner. Accordingly, we turn to a review of Pennsylvania cases on this issue. We begin our analysis with decisions of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania because we must predict how that court would decide this issue. See Erie, 304 U.S. at 78, 58 S.Ct. at 822.