Court Opinion

ID: 9789565
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:38:32.904697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:23.229585
License: Public Domain

*455Prager, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent. Under the undisputed facts as shown in the record, the plaintiff has failed as a matter of law to establish that the defendants were negligent. In this case Mr. and Mrs. Roy Loney kept in their backyard a fifty-five gallon metal barrel which was used as an incinerator. The Loney property lies behind and across the alley from the Gerchberg home. On the day the young plaintiff was injured, Rodney Loney went to the incinerator and burned a box of papers. This action was observed by the plaintiff, Rolf Gerchberg, who was standing near the incinerator. Rolf then left with his mother to pick up a friend who was coming over to plaintiff’s home to play. Rodney Loney completed his task of burning the papers. The material in the incinerator had burned down but was still smoking. There was no flame. The young plaintiff and his friend subsequently returned to the Gerchberg home. About thirty minutes later, plaintiff decided to go back to the Loney’s incinerator after noticing smoke coming therefrom. Plaintiff looked into the barrel and, by standing on his toes, could see no flame. Plaintiff then picked up some papers and threw them in the incinerator as he had seen Rodney doing. This produced more smoke. The plaintiff then picked up some more papers from the box and dropped them in the incinerator. At this point the plaintiff for the first time saw flames coming out of the barrel. In some way, the grass in Loney’s backyard and the plaintiff’s trousers caught on fire and the plaintiff was burned.
In my judgment, under these factual circumstances, the Loneys cannot be held liable for failing to exercise due care under the circumstances. At the time Rolf Gerchberg approached the incinerator, there were no flames and the trash in the incinerator was only emitting smoke. A trash barrel incinerator may be found in the backyards of hundreds, probably thousands, of homes in the state of Kansas. I do not know what the majority would require the Loneys to have done under the factual circumstances shown here. Although young Rolf Gerchberg had been in the yard earlier observing the burning of the trash, it does not seem reasonable to me to require the Loneys to anticipate that the child would return, throw additional papers into the incinerator, and then, somehow, catch himself on fire. Furthermore, it seems to me that the Loneys could reasonably anticipate that the parents of young Rolf Gerchberg would take steps to see that he was kept *456out of harm’s way. Under the facts, I would reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the trial court’s judgment which found that the Loneys were not negligent or liable to plaintiff as a matter of law.
I am also in disagreement with the position of the majority that the traditional classifications of trespassers, licensees, and invitees should be maintained and that the degree of care owed to each classification by a land occupier should be controlled solely by the status of the injured person. A cardinal principle of tort law today is that all persons should be required to use ordinary care under the circumstances to prevent others from being injured as the result of their conduct. Although it is true that some exceptions have been made to this general principle, no such exception should be made unless clearly supported by some sound public policy. One of the areas where the English common law departed from this fundamental concept was in determining the liability of a possessor of land for injury to persons who have entered upon that land. The duties owed to persons in the three classifications are discussed fully in the majority opinion written by Mr. Justice Fromme.
As observed by the courts and by legal writers, the special privileges which the common-law rules accord to the land occupier sprang from the high place which lands have traditionally held in English and American thought and the dominance and prestige of the landowning class in England during the formative period of the common law. The common-law doctrine, as applied to invitees and licensees, has been repudiated in England where it originated. As noted by the majority opinion, this was accomplished by statute in 1957.
In today’s society a man’s life or limb does not become less worthy of protection by the law, nor a loss less worthy of compensation under the law, because he has come upon the land of another without permission or with permission but without a business purpose. Reasonable people do not ordinarily vary their conduct depending upon such matters, and to focus upon the status of the injured party as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee in order to determine the question whether the landowner has a duty of care, is contrary to our modern social mores and humanitarian values. The commón-law rules obscure rather than illuminate the proper considerations which should govern determination of the question of duty.
*457This case involves the question of the duty owed by a land occupier to a licensee. It is not necessary that we determine here that the same standard of care should be applied to trespassers, invitees, and licensees. As to invitees and licensees, this court in this case should abolish the status classification system and establish a rule that the standard of a land occupiers duty to all persons who come upon the property with his consent is ordinary care under the circumstances. The jurisdiction first adopting this rule was California; Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561 (1968). Since that time the following states have followed the lead of California and adopted the standard of reasonable care under all of the circumstances in cases involving licensees: Pickard v. City & County, 51 Haw. 134, 452 P.2d 445 (1969); Mile High Fence v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 489 P.2d 308 (1971); Smith v. Arbaugh’s Restaurant, Inc., 469 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1972); Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 199 N.W.2d 639 (1972); Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973); Mounsey v. Ellard, 363 Mass. 693, 297 N.E.2d 43 (1973); Mariorenzi v. Joseph DiPonte, Inc., 114 R.I. 294, 333 A.2d 127 (1975); Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski, 70 Wis. 2d 836, 236 N.W.2d 1 (1975); Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc., 328 So. 2d 367 (La. 1976); Ouellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552, 364 A.2d 631 (1976); Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868 (1976); Webb v. City and Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1977). For an excellent analysis and discussion of the present Kansas law see Stites: Liability of a Land Occupier to Persons Injured on His Premises: A Survey and Criticism of Kansas Law, 18 Kan. L. Rev. 161 (1969). I regret that the majority of the court have determined that this court should continue to apply the ancient common-law doctrine to licensees. In my opinion it is unjust and not suited to the society which exists in Kansas today.