Court Opinion

ID: 9557446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:50:19.617503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:50.536209
License: Public Domain

Finley, J.
(dissenting) — As I understand it, the conclusion reached herein by the majority is that respondent had no duty to check the area immediately behind his *888automobile prior to backing it up, because he had no reason to anticipate the presence of the child Rodney (now deceased) in that area.
I am not convinced that the evidence in the record inevitably supports this factual conclusion. However, assuming the contrary, solely for the purpose of argument, I am convinced that under the overall circumstances presented by this case, it is beside the point whether or not respondent had reason to anticipate the presence of the particular child, whose death respondent unquestionably caused.
The record contains ample evidence that respondent had reason to anticipate the presence of some young child, playing in the driveway immediately behind his car. At the time respondent left appellants’ house and entered the car, he saw Philip, Rickey and Paul Rose (age five, four, and three years, respectively,) playing ball on the lawn near the car. Respondent was a frequent visitor to the Rose home, and he knew that the younger children liked to play in the mud puddles which sometimes formed in the driveway on rainy days. Although it was not raining at the time of the accident, the record reveals that it had rained earlier in the day. By his own testimony, respondent admitted that he was aware of the danger of backing out of the driveway without first checking behind the car. In fact, he testified that he had made such a careful check before entering the car. Unfortunately, after having been seated in the car for about ten minutes while conversing with Barbara and Billy Rose, respondent failed to repeat his earlier examination of the area behind the car before putting it in motion.
It seems to me that the factor of a reasonable anticipation of the presence of some small child in the zone of danger renders the instant case clearly distinguishable from LaMoreaux v. Fosket (1954), 45 Wn. (2d) 249, 273 P. (2d) 795. In other words, the crucial point is that in the LaMoreaux case the defendant had no reason to anticipate the presence of any child in the immediate vicinity of his car. I-suggest the majority’s reliance upon the LaMoreaux case is at best extremely dubious.
*889I have no quarrel with the basic principle stated in the majority opinion: that “An essential of actionable negligence is the breach of a duty to the person injured.” Nor do I dispute the refined application of the foregoing principle: that “The duty to use care to avoid injury to others arises from the foreseeability of the risk created.” This latter concept was eloquently annunciated by Cardozo, J., in the famous case of Palsgraaf v. Long Island R. Co. (1928), 248 N. Y. 339, 162 N. E. 99, 59 A. L. R. 1253. Therein the defendant was held not liable for injuries sustained by a plaintiff who was not situated within the apparent zone of danger created by the defendant’s careless conduct.
The factor which, in my judgment, distinguishes the Palsgraaf case from the instant case is simply this: In Palsgraaf the defendant had no reason to anticipate that the harmful consequences of his careless conduct (causing a passenger, attempting to board a railroad car, to drop an apparently inoffensive parcel, which, in fact, contained fireworks) would reach out and encompass the relatively distant area occupied by the plaintiff. Hence, the defendant owed no duty of reasonable care to such a plaintiff for the reason that the plaintiff was not within the foreseeable zone of danger created by the defendant’s conduct.
In the instant case, however, the harmful consequences of respondent’s conduct encompassed Rodney, without expansion beyond foreseeable bounds. Rodney, the minor child, entered into the physical area within which, according to substantial evidence in the record, respondent had reason to anticipate the presence of young children toward whom his act of putting his automobile into operation was foreseeably dangerous. In other words, as I see the matter, Rodney entered into a foreseeable zone of danger, and thus became a member of a class of persons (young children whose presence in the area immediately behind the car was to be reasonably anticipated) as to whom respondent owed a duty of reasonable care.
The rule of law which I believe to be applicable to the instant case was well stated by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Newlin v. New England Tel. & *890Tel. Co. (1944), 316 Mass. 234, 54 N. E. (2d) 929, 155 A. L. R. 204, as follows:
“While it is settled that, if the defendant owed no duty of care to the plaintiff upon the facts alleged as argued by the defendant, there could be no actionable negligence on its part, Theriault v. Pierce, 307 Mass. 532, 533; Little v. Lynn & Marblehead Real Estate Co. 301 Mass. 156, yet it is also settled that the possibility of harm to a class of which a plaintiff is one raises a duty to abstain from conduct from which harm may result, ...” (Italics mine.)
That is to say: an act is negligent, and furnishes the foundation for an action in tort, if the actor should reasonably foresee that his act would result in injury to someone —it not being necessary that the “someone” should be the person actually injured. Wilson v. Northern Pac. R. Co. (1915), 30 N. D. 456, 153 N. W. 429; see, also, Lee v. Independent Dairy (1923), 127 Wash. 622, 221 Pac. 309. Perhaps this point can be clarified and underlined by a reference to our “attractive nuisance” cases. The leading Washington case of this category is Schock v. Ringling Bros. Etc. (1940), 5 Wn. (2d) 599, 105 P. (2d) 838. Therein the “attractive nuisance” doctrine was expressed as follows:
“ . . . One who maintains or creates upon his premises, or upon the premises of another, or in any public place, an instrumentality or condition which may reasonably be expected to attract children of tender years, and to constitute a danger to them, is under a duty to take the precautions that a reasonably prudent person would take, under similar circumstances, to prevent injury to such children.”
One of the several factual elements or considerations emphasized by the court with respect to the applicability of the doctrine is that
“. . . the instrumentality or condition must have been left unguarded and exposed at a place where children of tender years are accustomed to resort, or where it is reasonably to be expected that they will resort, . . . ” (Italics mine.)
Certainly it is not necessary under the so-called “attractive nuisance” doctrine that the plaintiff prove that the *891defendant had reason to expect the presence of the particular child who was actually injured. It is enough, in order to establish a duty of reasonable care, that the plaintiff show that the defendant had reason to anticipate the presence of that class of persons, namely, young children, to which the injured child belongs.
For the reasons hereinbefore set forth, I believe that the trial court erred in granting respondent’s motion for a nonsuit and in entering judgment dismissing appellants’ action. Consequently, I dissent.
Foster, and Hunter, JJ., concur with Finley, J.
November 30, 1960. Petition for rehearing denied.