Court Opinion

ID: 9706042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:30:15.783336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:18.562458
License: Public Domain

CAVANAUGH, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I would enter judgment non obstante veridicto in favor of the United States Steel Corporation. The injuries in this case were not due to any legally inappropriate action or inaction on the part of United States Steel Corporation. The appellee, Andrew Carter, had the burden of proving by a fair preponderance of the evidence that United States Steel Corporation was negligent and that its negligence was the proximate cause of the accident. Flagiello v. Crilly, 409 Pa. 389, 187 A.2d 289 (1963). In my opinion, he has not carried this burden.
On June 1, 1984 at about 7:00 P.M., Andrew Carter, who was then fourteen years old and an eighth-grade student, entered the Carrie Furnace Works of the United States Steel Corporation. He was with his friend, Christian Stonebraker, who was also fourteen years old at the time. Andrew knew that the plant was private property but he and his friend and another boy, Charles Baker, had been there about six times before. Andrew thought that the plant was not in operation as there were no signs of activity. However, he knew it was a “dangerous place” and he did not tell his parents that he went there because they would not have wanted him to be there. There was a high electrical tower on the property approximately 145 feet in height near a cinder block building. Andrew was aware at that time that the building had a sign stating “Danger, High Voltage”. The tower has two platforms, one at 112 feet and one at 135 feet from the ground. The one at 135 feet, where the accident occurred, was 15 feet x 8 feet and *283had a railing on only two sides. The plaintiff ventured out to the far edge of the platform which had no railing.
Andrew had attempted to climb the tower before but he was afraid to do so because of the height. His friend, Christian, had called him “chicken” on prior occasions for not climbing the tower and on this occasion, he was persuaded to join Christian in ascending the tower. Andrew was aware that electricity was dangerous and accordingly, he was listening for “buzzing” sounds while climbing the tower since he believed that if electricity were going through the lines, he would hear such a sound. He would have climbed down had he heard a buzz.
Andrew and his friends had entered the premises on about a half dozen occasions since Christmas of 1988 until June 1,1984. However, Andrew and Charles Baker had not climbed the tower. On the day on which the tragic accident occurred, Christian Stonebraker ascended the tower first with Andrew following. When the boys reached a platform near the top, Andrew touched a high voltage wire and as a result, was seriously injured.
In my opinion, there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict against United States Steel Corporation and the court below erred in denying the motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. In reviewing the denial of a motion for judgment n.o.v., our sole duty is to decide whether there was sufficient competent evidence to sustain the verdict, granting the verdict winner the benefit of every favorable inference reasonably to be drawn from such evidence. Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 376 Pa.Super. 508, 546 A.2d 639 (1988); Curran v. Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, 361 Pa.Super. 17, 521 A.2d 451 (1987). In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict, a reviewing court must consider all the evidence received. Niles v. Fall Creek Hunting Club, Inc., 376 Pa.Super. 260, 545 A.2d 926 (1988). Judgment n.o.v. should be entered when the facts are such that no two reasonable persons could disagree that the verdict was improper. McCloskey v. New York Life Insurance Compa*284ny, 292 Pa.Super. 1, 436 A.2d 690 (1981); Robertson v. Atlantic Richfield Petroleum Co., 371 Pa.Super. 49, 537 A.2d 814 (1987), appeal denied 520 Pa. 590, 551 A.2d 216 (1988).
The theory of the plaintiffs case was based on Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 339 which provides:
§ 339. Artificial Conditions Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children
A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if
(a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and
(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and
(c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and
(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and
(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.
Section 339 has been adopted as the law of this Commonwealth. See Jesko v. Turk, 421 Pa. 434, 219 A.2d 591 (1966). Nevertheless, the burden is on the trespassing child to prove that all of the conditions of § 339 are met. Scarborough v. Lewis, 359 Pa.Super. 57, 518 A.2d 563 (1986). The plaintiff below did not prove the conditions set forth in clauses (b) and (c). The comment to clause (b) states inter alia:
*285i. When risk such that children can be expected to appreciate it. The duty which the rule stated in this Section imposes upon the possessor of land is based upon the well-known tendency of children to trespass upon the land of others and the necessity of protecting them, even though trespassers, from their childish lack of attention and judgment. The duty of the possessor, therefore, is only to exercise reasonable care to keep the part of the land upon which he should recognize the likelihood of children’s trespassing free from those conditions which, though observable by adults, are likely not to be observed by children, or which contain the risks the full extent of which an adult would realize but which are beyond the imperfect realization of children. It does not extend to those conditions the existence of which is obvious even to children and the risk of which should be fully realized by them. This limitation of the possessor’s liability to conditions dangerous to children, because of their inability to appreciate their surroundings or to realize the risk involved, frees the possessor of land from the liability to which he would otherwise be subjected by maintaining on the land the normal, necessary and usual implements which are essential to its normal use, but which reckless children can use to their harm in a spirit of bravado or to gratify some other childish desire and with as full a perception of the risks which they are running as though they were adults.
j. There are many dangers, such as those of fire and water, or of falling from a height, which under ordinary conditions may reasonably be expected to be fully understood and appreciated by any child of an age to be allowed at large. To such conditions the rule stated in this Section ordinarily has no application, in the absence of some other factor creating a special risk that the child will not avoid the danger, such as the fact that the condition is so hidden as not to be readily visible, or a *286distracting influence which makes it likely that the child will not discover or appreciate it.
Where, however, the possessor knows that children too young to appreciate such dangers are likely to trespass on his land, he may still be subject to liability to such children under the rule stated. (Emphasis added).
Andrew was fully aware of the risk of falling from a height equivalent to a fourteen-story building. He knew it was dangerous to be where he was.1 He was also fully *287aware of the risk involved if there had been electricity in the wires. He listened for a buzzing sound as he and his *288companion climbed the tower, and although he was tragically mistaken as to the presence of electricity in the wires, he was fully aware of the danger from live wires.
Andrew’s father was an architect and had warned him to stay away from unsafe places. He knew of the danger involved in climbing to great heights and in electricity.
The requirements of Clause (c) were patently not met. The Restatement states in its comment to § 339: Comment on Clause (c):
m. A possessor of land is, under the statement made in Comment e, under a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep so much of his land as he knows to be subject to the trespasses of young children, free from artificial conditions which involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to them. This does not require him to keep his land free from conditions which even young children are likely to observe and the full extent of the risk involved in which they are likely to realize. The purpose of the duty is to protect children from dangers which they do not appreciate and not to protect them against harm resulting from their own immature recklessness in the case of known and appreciated danger. Therefore, even though the condition is one which the possessor should realize to be such that young children are unlikely to realize the full extent of the danger of meddling with it or encountering it, the possessor is not subject to liability to a child who in fact discovers the condition and appreciates the full risk involved, but none the less chooses to encounter it out of recklessness or bravado.
Illustration:
8. The A Railroad Company maintains upon its land an unlocked turntable, upon which, as it knows, children of the neighborhood frequently trespass, and which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such children. On two occasions, B and C trespass upon the land, play with the turntable, and each is injured when his foot is caught in it. B is a boy sixteen years of age, whose maturity and *289experience make him fully understand and appreciate the danger. C is a boy nine years of age, who is the son of a railroad engineer, has been repeatedly warned against the turntable, and likewise fully appreciates the danger. A Railroad is not liable to B or to C. (Emphasis added). In the instant case, Andrew was subjected to pressure
from his companion to climb the steel tower. Christian Stonebraker testified as to what occurred when he and Andrew arrived at the mill, as follows:
Q. Did you talk about climbing the electrical tower when you got down there?
A. Once we were inside the mill, yes.
Q. Who brought up the subject?
A. I don’t recall.
Q. Did you say anything to Andrew about the safety of the tower?
A. Yeah. I told him it was really safe, everything was secure.
Q. Was it necessary to tell him that?
A. Because he inquired on whether it was safe or not. Q. Why did you think it was safe?
A. Because I had climbed it before, and everything appeared strong.
Q. Now, when you said it was safe, were you alluding to the structure, or were you alluding to the condition of wires in the vicinity?
A. The structure itself.
Q. Did you have any concern about the wires on top of this tower?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why not?
A. I figured since the mill appeared abandoned, there would be no need for electricity. I thought the wires had just been shut off.
The appellee contends that the case is analogous to Bartleson v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 361 Pa. 519, 64 A.2d 846 *290(1949), in which an eleven year-old boy climbed a high tension transmission tower to a height of 15 ft. while playing cowboys and indians and was electrocuted. The Supreme Court held that § 339 was applicable and affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff. The tower in that case was surrounded by a fence which was generally locked. The gate had been locked for years and children played in the area of the fence almost continuously over the years. On the date in question, some children, including the plaintiff, noticed that the gate was open and some of the boys thought the power was shut off because the gate was left wide open. The plaintiff did not know the tower was dangerous. The Supreme Court pointed out that there were three well-worn paths close by the tower which were frequently used by people in the neighborhood in going to school, church and work. This contrasts with the situation in our own case where the mill site was about three-quarters of a mile from a playground and access was available only along railroad tracks as the rest of the mill was fenced in. In addition, the plaintiff in Bartleson only climbed to a height of 15 feet, which is substantially different from climbing a tower that is approximately 145 feet in height.
In Jennings v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 369 Pa. 532, 87 A.2d 206 (1952) the Supreme Court held that the court below properly entered a non-suit against the plaintiff whose cause of action was based on § 339. In that case, a thirteen year-old boy went swimming in a pool on an abandoned strip mine containing water of a depth of 25 feet. The area was wild and uncultivated and the pool was about a half-mile from the highway. On two previous occasions, boys went swimming and people occasionally hunted and picked berries on the site. The Supreme Court held that this did not prove that the defendant knew, or had reason to know of the trespassers. The court further noted at 369 Pa. at 536, 87 A.2d at 208:
It certainly cannot be said that a normal boy thirteen and one-half years of age who has been in and around *291water often enough to have learned how to swim does not realize the risk involved In swimming in deep water.
In Felger v. Duquesne Light Co., 118 P.L.J. 79 (1970), affirmed; 441 Pa. 421, 273 A.2d 738 (1971), the plaintiff was a fourteen year-old boy who climbed a pole containing electric wires and was seriously injured when he touched the wire. A parking lot where the pole was located had been used for many years as a playground for children. The plaintiff had received no warning about the dangers of electricity or climbing telephone poles. He reached the pole by climbing onto a 8 foot high wall and then climbed the pole. A verdict was entered for the plaintiff and the court entered judgment n.o.v. as all of the conditions of § 339 had not been satisfied. The case is clearly analogous to our own and readily distinguishable from Hyndman v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 396 Pa. 190, 152 A.2d 251 (1959). In Hyndman, a boy scout troop occupied a campsite about 25 feet from a railroad right of way. The camp was located only 50 feet from a catenary pole containing live wires. The boy scout camp was frequented for a long period of time before the accident and boys often climbed the pole to a platform 20 feet above the ground. The plaintiff was an eleven year-old boy and unaware of the danger involved, climbed to the platform. He touched the wires and was severely burned. He was also knocked from the platform to the ground. Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that the conditions of § 339 had been met. The Supreme Court also noted that after the accident the defendant attached signs to the tower reading “Danger, Live Wire, Keep Off.”
In the case before us, the imposition of liability on United States Steel would make the defendant an insurer. The plaintiff was a fourteen year-old boy who was fully aware of the risks involved in climbing a 145 feet high electrical tower, both as to the danger involved in climbing to such a height and the risk if electricity was present in the wires. He was aware of the sign stating “Danger, High Voltage” located on a cinder block building immediately adjacent to *292the tower that he climbed.2 The plaintiff was induced to climb the tower by his companion, who previously said he was “chicken” for not attempting this. The evidence was not sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff. The mere happening of an accident does not raise an inference or presumption of negligence, nor even make out a prima facie case of negligence. Churilla v. Barner, 269 Pa.Super. 100, 409 A.2d 83 (1979). Imposition of liability under Section 339 requires proof of negligence. Scarborough v. Lewis, 359 Pa.Super. 57, 518 A.2d 563 (1986). While we are sensitive to the very serious injuries suffered by the plaintiff, we should not allow this to permit imposition of liability upon a defendant where none exists under the law.
I would reverse and grant judgment non obstante veredicto.
Having reviewed the Opinion of Cirillo, P.J. with my conclusion as to the grant of judgment n.o.v., I adhere to the opinion that the grant of judgment n.o.v. is the appropriate disposition of this case. Nevertheless, if I were to reach the issue of the propriety of the newspaper and television reports, I would grant a new trial because of the prejudicial nature of the reports.
POPOVICH, J., joins.

. Andrew Carter testified as follows:
Q. And am I correct that you went down there about the same number of times that Mr. Stonebraker did, five or six times, or did he go down there more than you did?
A. We never went down there without the other one, to the best of my recollection, and it would be about five to six times.
Q. I take it that you preferred not to tell your parents, because you knew they would object if you did?
A. Yes.
Q. Why would they object?
A. Because they’re parents. It's a dangerous place.
Q. It’s a dangerous place, it’s unsafe and they wouldn't want you down there.
Isn’t it true, Andrew, that your dad over the years has instructed you to stay out of unsafe areas?
A. Yes.
Q. Didn’t he also tell you about electricity or advise you of its potential nature over the years?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you know better than to stick a fork into an electrical outlet in the house, certainly?
A. Yes.
Q. And you know electricity is dangerous?
A. Yes.
Q. You mentioned the size of the sign that was on the cinder block building, and you tried to compare it to the signs that were located on the other side of the cinder block building.
There’s no question that you read that sign on that cinder block building, is there?
A. No.
Q. You saw that sign on that door?
A. Yes.
Q. Prior to June 1, 1984, didn’t you?
A. Yes.
Q. And that sign said, Danger, High Voltage; is that right?
A. Yes. *287Q. And I take it that that particular cinder block building was located immediately adjacent to the tower that you climbed; isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And as a matter of fact, you had attempted to climb that tower before, and you weren’t able to do it; isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn’t do it, because you were scared and afraid, and you didn't want to go up there and — strike that.
You didn’t do it, because you got scared and backed down; isn’t that right?
A. No. It was because of the heights, sir.
Q. So you know there was danger from the heights, there's no question about that?
A. Yes.
Q. Isn’t it true, Andrew, that on June 1, 1984, it was your understanding that if electricity was going into a line, it would make a buzzing noise?
A. Yes.
Q. And didn’t you listen for buzzing noises when you went up that tower?
A. Yes.
Q. And isn’t it also true, Andrew, that if you had. heard buzzing noises, you would have come back down?
A. Yes.
Q. And the reason you would have come back down was because there would be electricity in that tower; isn’t that right?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn’t hear buzzing noises, even though you listened for them, and so you continued to climb; right?
A. Yes.
Q. You never asked anybody whether the plant was shut down or not, did you?
A. How could I have asked anyone? Ask who?
Q. You could have asked your father; isn’t that right?
A. I could have, but why would I? That would only get me in some trouble.
Q. So you didn’t want to ask your father whether the plant was shut down, because you were afraid you were going to get into trouble, because he wouldn’t want you down there in the first place; isn’t that right?
A. Well, no parent would.
Q. You didn’t ask any of your classmates if the plant was shut down, did you?
A. No.
(Emphasis added).

. The majority opinion states at p. 652, "Finally, the tower did not have any warning signs ...” The plaintiff himself testified that there was a warning sign of which he was aware located on a building immediately adjacent to the tower.