Court Opinion

ID: 9746883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:42:30.91662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:17.778866
License: Public Domain

*196
Davidson, J.,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

In these cases, both of which deal with the status of injured parties who were trespassers, the majority refuses to abolish the common law distinctions in a landowner’s or occupier’s duty toward an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. Consequently, the majority refuses to apply the traditional principles of negligence, including the standard of reasonable care under all the circumstances, to trespassers. I respectfully dissent.
As long ago as 1959, the United States Supreme Court recognized the decreasing viability of the common law approach that premised a landowner’s liability upon the status of the injured party. In Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 630-31, 79 S. Ct. 406, 410 (1959), the Supreme Court said:
"The distinctions which the common law draws between licensee and invitee were inherited from a culture deeply rooted to the land, a culture which traced many of its standards to a heritage of feudalism. In an effort to do justice in an industrialized urban society, with its complex economic and individual relationships, modern common-law courts have found it necessary to formulate increasingly subtle verbal refinements, to create subclassifications among traditional common-law categories, and to delineate fine gradations in the standards of care which the landowner owes to each. Yet even within a single jurisdiction, the classifications and subclassifications bred by the common law have produced confusion and conflict. As new distinctions have been spawned, older ones have become obscured. Through this semantic morass the common law has moved, unevenly and with hesitation, towards ’imposing on owners and occupiers a single duty of reasonable care in all the circumstances. ’ ” (Footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).
*197Thereafter, courts in various states began to abandon the common law distinctions between the duties owed to invitees, licensees, or trespassers. Courts in at least five jurisdictions have abolished the common law distinctions with respect to invitees and licensees, but not with respect to trespassers.1 Courts in at least six jurisdictions have abolished the common law distinctions with respect to invitees, licensees, and trespassers in cases in which the injured party was either an invitee or a licensee.2 Courts in at least seven jurisdictions have abolished the common law distinctions in cases in which the injured party was a trespasser.3
*198The applicable principles, including the standard of care to be employed, were stated in Ouellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552, 557, 364 A.2d 631, 634 (1976) as follows:
"Accordingly, we hold that henceforth in New Hampshire owners and occupiers of land shall be governed by the test of reasonable care under all the circumstances in the maintenance and operation of their property.- The character of and circumstances surrounding the intrusion will be relevant and important in determining the standard of care applicable to the landowner. When the intrusion is not foreseeable or is against the will of the landowner many intruders will be denied recovery as a matter of law. In other words, a landowner cannot be expected to maintain his premises in a safe condition for a wandering tramp or a person who enters against the known wishes of the landowner. Essentially the traditional tort test of foreseeability determines the liability or nonliability of the landowner in these cases. 'If the defendant could not reasonably foresee any injury as the result of his act, or if his conduct was reasonable in the light of what he could anticipate, there is no negligence, and no liability.’ W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 43 (4th ed. 1971).” (Emphasis added.)
Under these principles, not every case involving injury on private property raises a factual question for the jury’s consideration. The trial court retains its function of making the threshold determination whether there is sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury. Scurti v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 433, 442, 354 N.E.2d 794, 798-99, 387 N.Y.S.2d 55, 59 (1976); Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 241-42, 352 N.E.2d 868, 872-73, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 568 *199(1976). Thus, as stated in Paquette v. Joyce, 117 N.H. 832, 837, 379 A.2d 207, 210 (1977):
"Ouellette did not purport to extinguish the court’s function to determine whether the foreseeable risk and the relationship of the parties was such as to impose any duty of care at all upon the defendant for the plaintiffs benefit. We expressly stated that in some cases the plaintiff may be denied recovery as a matter of law.” (Emphasis added.)
The fundamental rationale underlying the application of negligence principles rather than traditional common law classifications was stated by Chief Judge Bazelon in Smith v. Arbaugh’s Restaurant, Inc., 469 F.2d 97, 101 (D.C. Cir. 1972); cert. denied, 412 U.S. 939, 93 S. Ct. 2774 (1973), as follows:
"We believe that common law classifications are now equally alien to modern tort law, primarily because they establish immunities from liability which no longer comport with accepted values and common experience. Perhaps the protection afforded to landowners by these rules was once perceived as necessary in view of the sparseness of land settlements, and the inability of owners to inspect or maintain distant holdings. The prestige and dominance of the landowning class in the nineteenth century contributed to the common law’s emphasis on the economic and social importance of free use and exploitation of land over and above the personal safety of those who qualified as trespassers or licensees.
Today, the preeminence of land over life is no longer accepted. Human safety may be more important than a landowner’s unrestricted freedom. '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 *200another without permission or with permission but without a business purpose.’ [Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108, 443 P.2d 561, 568, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 104 (1968).]” (Emphasis added) (footnotes omitted).
In Maryland, as recently as 1978, Judge Levine, in a dissenting opinion in Sherman v. Suburban Trust Company, 282 Md. 238, 252-54, 384 A.2d 76, 84-85 (1978), stated some of the additional reasons for abolishing the common law classifications. There he said:
"Retention of the archaic doctrine predicating the duty of a landowner solely upon the status of the injured party as a trespasser, licensee or invitee can no longer be justified in terms of either logic or social policy. Although it was once thought that the common law approach was necessary to protect a landowner’s right to the free use and enjoyment of his property . .. the emerging and more enlightened view, in my opinion, is that society’s interest in the safety of its members outweighs its interest in the occupier’s unrestricted use of his premises.
Strict application of the common law rules has frequently resulted in the inordinately severe treatment of plaintiff entrants. See, e.g., Osterman v. Peters, 260 Md. 313, 272 A.2d 21 (1971) (upholding directed verdict in favor of defendant whose negligence in leaving swimming pool unattended led to death of 4-1/2 year old infant trespasser). The inequities of the traditional system are especially apparent in those cases where courts, focusing exclusively on status, rule against the injured party as a matter of law thereby depriving the plaintiff of a jury determination as to the reasonableness of the landowner’s conduct in light of prevailing standards within the particular community.
*201A growing dissatisfaction with the harsh and clumsy nature of the common law rules has prompted courts to engraft upon the doctrine a multitude of exceptions and modifícations. Ironically, these efforts have by and large added to the complexity, confusion and inequity of the system, giving rise to what one court has termed, a 'semantical quagmire.’
Finally, continued adherence to the ancient licensee-invitee-trespasser distinction is inconsistent with contemporary thinking about the function of tort law in our society. Resort to rules of status, as opposed to principles of negligence and fault, confíicts with the goal of distributing risks of personal injury over large segments of the population and prevents efñcient allocation of social resources. ... As professors Harper and James wrote over twenty years ago: '[T]he traditional rule confers on an occupier of land a special privilege to be careless which is quite out of keeping with the development of accident law generally and is no more justifiable here than it would be in the case of any other useful enterprise or activity.’ 2 F. Harper & F. James, The Law of Torts § 27.3, at 1440 (1956).
For these reasons, I think it is time to abandon once and for all the common law status-oriented approach to premises liability and to adopt in its stead a standard grounded on well-settled principles of ordinary negligence.” (Footnote omitted.)
I wholeheartedly agree with Judge Levine. In my view, it is time to abolish judicially-determined status distinctions as the sole determinant of the standard of care owed by an owner or occupier of land to an injured party. I would apply *202the traditional principles of negligence, including the test of foreseeability and the standard of reasonable care under all the circumstances, with respect to trespassers as well as with respect to invitees and licensees. Accordingly, I would apply these principles in the two cases here.
In case No. 59, the record shows that Timothy Paul Murphy (petitioner) was injured when he lifted the top of a container that he believed to be a rubbish container, but that was, in fact, a transformer located on a parking lot adjacent to a bowling alley. While lighting some matches in an attempt to see whether his stolen radio had been hidden inside, the petitioner received a severe electrical shock when his hand came in contact with a portion of the transformer. There was evidence to show that the transformer, as well as the walls surrounding it, were covered with graffiti, facts that support an inference that people frequently trespassed upon the premises. There was further evidence to show that the front doors of the transformer were equipped with locks, a fact that supports an inference that the electric company knew that the transformer was dangerous and that trespassers might be injured. In addition, there was evidence to show that there were no lights in the area in which the transformer was located, that there were no warning notices posted, and that the petitioner was able to raise the top of the transformer only because the tabs and welds that affixed the top were broken, according to experts, approximately four days before the accident. These facts support an inference that the electric company did not use reasonable care under all the circumstances.
Thus, there was sufficient evidence to show that the electric company could have reasonably foreseen that a trespasser might be injured as a result of its conduct in maintaining and operating the transformer and that, under all the circumstances, the electric company failed to use reasonable care in maintaining and operating the transformer. Accordingly, in my view, the case was properly submitted to the jury. Because the trial court’s jury instructions applied traditional principles of negligence, including the standard of reasonable care under all the *203circumstances, rather than the common law principles applicable to trespassers, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment N.O.V. without remand for a new trial.
In case No. 87, the record shows that 3Y2 year old Christopher Smith drowned in a pond located in an abandoned quarry adjacent to an apartment building in which his parents (petitioners) lived. There was evidence to show that for some 20 years, the pond had been utilized by residents of the neighborhood for recreational purposes, a fact that establishes that people frequently trespassed upon the premises. There was further evidence to show that at one time the owners had posted "no trespassing” signs and had erected a barbed wire fence around the property, and that two children had previously drowned in the pond, facts that support an inference that the landowner knew that the pond was dangerous and that trespassers might be injured. In addition, there was evidence to show that, by the time of Christopher’s death, the "no trespassing” signs had disappeared, that the fence had fallen into such disrepair that there was uninhibited access to the pond, and that the failure to maintain the fence was a violation of the Baltimore County Code. These facts support an inference that the landowner did not use reasonable care under all the circumstances. Thus, here, as in Case No. 59, there was sufficient evidence to show that the landowner could have reasonably foreseen that a trespasser might be injured as the result of its conduct in maintaining the premises and that, under all the circumstances, the landowner failed to use reasonable care in maintaining the premises.
In my view, the trial court erred in sustaining the landowner’s demurrer. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment in favor of the landowner and would remand the case for further proceedings.
I do, however, agree with the majority that the trial court did not err in granting Baltimore County’s motion raising a preliminary objection on the ground of immunity. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment in favor of Baltimore County. To this extent, I concur.

. E.g., Poulin v. Colby College, 402 A.2d 846, 849-51 (Me. 1979); Mounsey v Ellard, 363 Mass. 693, 706-09, 297 N.E.2d 43, 51-52 (1973); Peterson v. Balach, 294 Minn. 161, 173-74, 199 N.W.2d 639, 642 (1972); O’Leary v. Coenen, 251 N.W.2d 746. 751 (N.D. 1977); Antoniewicz v. Reszcynski, 70 Wis.2d 836, 856-58, 236 N.W.2d 1, 11-12 (1975). See, e.g.. Home Ins. Co. v. Spears, 590 S.W.2d 71, 72-73 (Ark. App. 1979).

. E.g., Smith v. Arbaugh’s Restaurant, Inc., 469 F.2d 97, 100 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 939, 93 S. Ct. 2774 (1973); Webb v. City & Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731, 732-33 (Alas. 1977); Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108, 443 P.2d 561, 568, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 104 (1968); Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 548, 489 P.2d 308, 314 (1971); Gibo v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Hawaii 299, 301, 459 P.2d 198, 200 (1969); Pickard v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Hawaii 134, 135-36, 452 P.2d 445, 446 (1969); Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233, 240-41, 352 N.E.2d 868, 872, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 568 (1976).

. E.g, Mark v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 7 Cal. 3d 170, 177-78, 496 P.2d 1276, 1278-81, 101 Cal. Rptr. 908, 910-13 (1972) (college student trespasser electrocuted while attempting to remove light bulb from street lamp located outside his bedroom window); Ekberg v. Greene, 196 Colo. 494, 495-97, 588 P.2d 375, 375-76 (1978) (teenage vandals burned by flash fire that occurred when, after the close of business, they opened service station restroom door and struck match to light cigarette); Cates v. Beauregard Elec. Coop., Inc., 328 So. 2d 367, 367-68, 370-71 (La.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 833, 97 S. Ct. 97 (1976) (16-year old trespasser iniured after climbing utility pole and touching energized electric wire); Soule v. Massachusetts Elec. Co., Mass. ,390 N.E.2d 716, 719-22 (1979) (child trespasser injured after climbing on switching platform and touching uninsulated high-voltage wire); Pridgen v. Boston Housing Auth., 364 Mass. 696, 709-13, 308 N.E.2d 467, 476-78 (1974) (trapped, imperiled, and helpless child trespasser crushed by descending elevator after climbing through escape hatch in elevator car, slipping off roof, and being caught on metal brackets on shaft wall); Pacquette v. Joyce, 117 N.H. 832, 834, 837, 379 A.2d 207, 208, 210 (1977) (passenger injured when car crossed roadway and collided with stump located on private property); Ouellette v. Blanchard, 116 N.H. 552, 555-58, 364 A.2d 631, 634-35 (1976) (10-year old burned after entering property uninvited with playmates where owner was burning rubbish); Scurti v. City of New York, 40 N.Y.2d 433, 437-43, 354 N.E.2d 794, 795-99, 387 N.Y.S.2d 55, 56-59 (1976) (14-year old trespasser electrocuted, after entering railroad yard through hole in fence and climbing on top of freight car); Mariorenzi v. Joseph DiPonte, Inc., *198114 R.I., 294, 298-307, 333 A.2d 127, 128-33 (1975) (5-year old trespasser drowned in water-filled holes dug for septic tanks). See, e.g., Rosenau v. City of Estherville, 119 N.W.2d 125, 128, 134-36 (Iowa 1972) (child injured by exploding firework that he removed from a baseball park the morning after a fireworks display).