Court Opinion

ID: 9628674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:28:52.69125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:09.912897
License: Public Domain

Ott, J.
(dissenting) — I agree with the conclusion of the majority that,
“Since the evidence fails to establish that the lift or its operation was attractive or enticing to young children, it must be held that the attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply.”
I also agree with the conclusion of the majority that instructions Nos. 1 and 10 were erroneous. My disagreement is with the conjectural conclusion of the majority that the giving of these erroneous instructions was not prejudicial.
In my opinion, the questioned instructions were prejudicial. By instruction No. 1, the court outlined the issues as presented by the pleadings, and told the jury that plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in seven separate particulars. The instruction defined the seventh act of negligence as
“Maintaining and operating upon said premises an attractive nuisance and a condition, instrumentality and ma*249chinery which were dangerous to children of tender years and which could reasonably be expected to attract children, and failure to exercise reasonable care to protect them and particularly the plaintiff minor.”
The “failure to exercise reasonable care” referred to in the above-quoted portion of instruction No. 1 was stated with particularity in the preceding paragraphs covering the other six alleged acts of negligence. By that portion of the instruction covering the seventh alleged act of negligence, the jury was told that the ownership of the property alone constituted negligence, if it was attractive to children. The doctrine of attractive nuisance was erroneously defined as one of defendant’s seven acts of negligence. We cannot assume, without resorting to speculation, that the jury disregarded this improper instruction.
By instruction No. 10, the court compounded its error by defining all of the essential elements of the attractive nuisance doctrine. If the jury followed instruction No. 10, its verdict was based upon a theory which the majority concede is not present in this case. The jury might very well have adopted either or both of these erroneous instructions as the basis for its verdict.
In my opinion, a new trial should be granted.
Mallery, J. concurs with Ott, J.