Court Opinion

ID: 9932441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-09 18:40:47.549876+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:01.559601
License: Public Domain

I agree that a landowner should not be liable to "trespassers who enter upon the land of another with the manifest intent to commit a criminal act and to whom the landowner owes only the duty not to intentionally injure," but I would also emphasize that this case deals with a landowner's liability to a trespassing adult.
The duty owed a trespasser depends on several factors, including the nature of the use of the land, the condition of the land, and in the some instances, the age of the trespasser.
I think the rule adopted is a good rule, but I am afraid it could cause confusion. What if, for example, the plaintiff had entered on the land to hunt, and the land was posted, and he was injured in the same manner? Would the same result obtain? Because I am unsure of the ultimate ramifications of the rule, I concur only in the result.