Court Opinion

ID: 9531358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:10:11.408012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:25.690152
License: Public Domain

SPENCE, J.
I dissent.
This is another of a series of recent decisions of this court dealing with the question of the nature of the duty owed by a landowner to a trespassing child with respect to the condition of the landowner’s premises. My views on this subject have been stated at length in my dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Willson, 51 Cal.2d 94, 106 [331 P.2d 48], and in my concurring and dissenting opinions in Courtell v. McEachen, 51 Cal.2d 448, 460 [334 P.2d 870], and Garcia v. Soogian, 52 Cal.2d 107, 113 [333 P.2d 433]. It would serve no useful purpose to reiterate those views here. Suffice it to say that those views were based upon the salutary and reasonable rules established by a long line of “former cases,’’ which were followed by this court as recently as 1957 in *346Knight v. Kaiser, 48 Cal.2d 778 [312 P.2d 1089]. Those settled rules were thrown into a state of confusion by the above-cited more recent decisions of this court, which either ignored or attempted to distinguish the “former cases.” The majority opinion here, however, recognizes the inconsistency, for after citing some of the “former eases,” including Knight v. Kaiser, supra, 48 Cal.2d 778, it states that “the cases cited above are disapproved insofar as their language or holdings are contrary to the views expressed herein.” All the holdings of the cited “former cases” clearly support the judgment of the trial court and are contrary to the views expressed by the majority. I cannot agree that the “former cases” should be disapproved or that the judgment here should be reversed.
As stated in my dissenting opinions in the above-mentioned recent eases, the rules established by the “former cases” permitted the imposition of liability on the landowner in favor of the trespassing child in certain situations but not in a situation, such as the present one, in which the risk encountered by the trespassing child was one which was both “common and obvious.” These rules had the virtue of bringing some degree of certainty into the law and preventing the imposition of an unjust burden upon the landowner. I believe that this court should reaffirm those rules rather than disapprove them.
It now appears that with the majority’s disapproval here of Knight v. Kaiser, supra, 48 Cal.2d 778, liability may be imposed upon a landowner for the common and obvious risk to a trespassing child occasioned by the maintenance of a sandpile on the landowner’s property. On the other hand, it now appears that with the majority’s approval here of the decision in Garcia v. Soogian, supra, 52 Cal.2d 107, liability may not be imposed for the risk to a trespassing child occasioned by the maintenance of a pile of materials consisting of building panels containing windows. In my opinion, these declarations of approval and disapproval by the majority cannot be reconciled, and thus confusion still exists in this important field of the law.
I would adhere to the settled rules established by the “former cases” and would affirm the judgment.
Schauer, J., and McComb, J., concurred.