Court Opinion

ID: 9585000
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:54:56.534392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:16.742077
License: Public Domain

Currie, J.
{concurring). The decision in this case, on the issue of governmental immunity of the defendant city, turns on the very narrow point that an “attractive nuisance” is not a true nuisance.
*226If the liability of a municipal corporation for an attractive nuisance resulting in injury to a child of tender years was the same as its liability for maintaining an ordinary nuisance, then as pointed out in the majority opinion, there would be no immunity, because the relationship of governor and governed ■ did not exist in the present case. The decisions in Robb v. Milwaukee (1942), 241 Wis. 432, 6 N. W. (2d) 222, and Holl v. Merrill (1947), 251 Wis. 203, 28 N. W. (2d) 363, clearly establish that a municipal corporation is liable for personal injuries resulting from a nuisance created by it in performance of a governmental function if the relationship of governor and governed does not exist between the municipal corporation and the party injured. The relationship of governor and governed exists where the party injured at the time of injury was enjoying the benefit of a particular governmental activity which resulted in the injury. Erickson v. West Salem (1931), 205 Wis. 107, 236 N. W. 579, and Pohland v. Sheboygan (1947), 251 Wis. 20, 27 N. W. (2d) 736, are typical cases in which the relationship of governor and governed did exist, as each of the injured parties in both cases was enjoying the benefit of the use of a park area maintained by the defendant city when injured as the result of defects in the premises resulting from the particular governmental activity whose benefits he was enjoying.
In the instant case the governmental activity resulting in creating the alleged dangerous condition was either that of cleaning the streets or maintaining a public dump. Patrick Flamingo, the deceased, was not enjoying the benefits of either of those activities at the time and place of his drowning, so that no relationship of governor and governed existed.
It is only in the cases in which liability is predicated on the maintenance of a nuisance that this court has enforced the exception to the rule, that a municipal corporation is not liable for injuries resulting from a function performed in its *227governmental capacity, as distinguished from its proprietary capacity, by imposing liability if the relationship of governor and governed does not exist. This exception to the general rule does not apply in cases where liability is predicated upon negligence alone, as distinguished from nuisance.
The question, then, which faces the court in the instant case is whether this exception should be extended to cases of “attractive nuisance,” or whether it should be limited strictly to cases where the liability is based on a true nuisance.
The use of the term “attractive nuisance” has often been criticized as not being a correct descriptive term.
In New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Fruchter (C. C. A. 1921), 271 Fed. 419, 421, it was stated:
“It is too obvious to need comment that the court below treated the claim in suit as covered by what are known as the ‘attractive nuisance,’ ‘lure,’ or ‘trap’ cases.
“ (1) Since, so far as the courts of the United States are concerned, these cases are all assumed to rest on Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 21 L. Ed. 745, the word ‘nuisance’ is inappropriate. A nuisance is that which ‘unlawfully worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage,’ and neither the turntable of the Stout Case nor the electric wire here to be considered was a nuisance; both were lawful enough. But many a lawful thing may be so negligently managed, handled, or maintained as to give rise to causes of action in tort. The true doctrine is that any composition of matter which lures or attracts the confiding ignorance of childhood to its own harm must be safeguarded as circumstances require, and of course the circumstances vary in almost every instance.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Prosser, Torts, p. 618, sec. 77, also criticizes the use of the term “attractive nuisance” and states:
“Accordingly, two thirds of the American courts have developed a doctrine, which has been sadly miscalled by the name of ‘attractive nuisance,’ making the occupier of land liable for conditions on it which are highly dangerous to trespassing children.”
*228Sec. 339, Restatement, 2 Torts, p. 920, is entitled, “Artificial Conditions Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children,” and sets forth the principles of law applicable in cases ordinarily embraced within the “attractive-nuisance” doctrine, but the text of this section carefully avoids the use of the term “attractive nuisance.” A reasonable inference from this would be that the Committee on Torts of the American Law Institute which drafted the Restatement of the Law of Torts disapproved of the use of the term.
Both American Jurisprudence and Corpus Juris Secundum treat the subject of “attractive nuisance” under the title, “Negligence,” rather than the title, “Nuisances,” which is indicative that the editorial staffs of these two leading legal encyclopedias consider that the principles of the law of attractive nuisance are based on the theory of negligence rather than of nuisance.
It therefore seems clear that liability for an attractive nuisance is but a phase of the liability for negligence. Inasmuch as this court has never recognized any exception to the general principle that a municipal corporation is not liable for injuries resulting from negligence in the performance of activities in its governmental capacity, except where a true nuisance is created, we would be engaging in an act of injudicious judicial legislation if we were to extend the exception recognized in nuisance cases to this case. While this court has on a number of occasions criticized this rule of immunity applicable to municipal corporations as being archaic and not consistent with the principles of fundamental justice, nevertheless, we also have repeatedly declared that it is the function of the legislature and not of this court to abolish the rule.