Court Opinion

ID: 9707555
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:15:37.192951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:48.070137
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
The building in which Shawn Cullinane was fatally injured was located on a 6-acre industrial tract and was in the process of being demolished. A different standard of care is applicable to the owner of a building which is undergoing demolition.
An owner of a building being demolished owes no duty to keep the building in repair even to those properly within it. “It would be an absurdity to say that a building must be kept in repair while being demolished.” Matthews v. Southern Amusement Company, 199 So. 2d 403, 404-05 (La. App. 1967). See, also, Atkins v. Urban Redevelopment Auth., etc., 263 Pa. Super. 37, 396 A.2d 1364 (1979).
The rule is similar to that applicable to a street or highway under construction or repair. The duty to *252keep the highway in reasonably safe condition for travel is remitted during the time when repairs or improvements are in progress. Bruno v. Gunnison Contractors, Inc., 176 Neb. 462, 126 N.W.2d 477 (1964); City of Lincoln v. Calvert, 39 Neb. 305, 58 N.W. 115 (1894). The duty then is to warn the public that the highway is under construction or closed.
In Neal, Admr. v. Home Builders, Inc., 232 Ind. 160, 111 N.E.2d 280 (1953), it was held not feasible to barricade a semiconstructed building so as to prevent trespasses by children. The court stated at 188-89, 111 N.E.2d at 294: “We believe it equally true in the case at bar that any barricade at the entrance to the semi-completed house, of sufficient size and strength to keep children out of the building, would destroy the very purpose for which the opening is maintained during the construction of the building. It is common knowledge that carpenters and other workmen use such openings as a means of ingress and egress into and out of the building in the performance of their duties in connection with the construction thereof, and to require them to remove and replace the barricade every time they went in or out of the building would delay its completion and place an undue burden on the owner of the property. Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Fox (1906), 38 Ind. App. 268, 275, 70 N.E. 81.
“The owner or builder of a dwelling house is not an insurer of the safety of children who come upon or into the building while under construction either as trespassers or licensees, by permission or sufferance, for the purpose of play.
“ ‘The simple fact that a child non sui juris is injured will not import negligence to a defendant. It may be argued that a child of tender years is incapable of protecting itself and hence the law imposes the duty upon landowners. The primary duty of protecting children by nature and by law devolves upon their parents who have legal power to control their actions and whose moral duty it is to keep their *253children from entering upon dangerous premises— an obligation equal at least to the moral obligation of the landowner to fence them out.’ Holstine v. Director, etc. Railroads (1922), 77 Ind. App. 582, 594, 134 N.E. 303, supra.”
Shawn did not enter the building with the express or implied consent of the owner. As such he was a trespasser or bare licensee, since he had been brought to the property by his father. Generally, the only duty owed to a trespasser is to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him. Bosiljevac v. Ready Mixed Concrete Co., 182 Neb. 199, 153 N.W.2d 864 (1967).
This is not a case of a child attracted to a building under circumstances where the owner should have realized that children would be likely to trespass and not realize the seriousness of the risk, and in which the burden of eliminating the danger was slight as compared to the risk.
No question of warning is involved, since Shawn had been instructed by his father not to enter the building because of the danger involved.
Hastings and Caporale, JJ., join in this dissent.