Court Opinion

ID: 9761743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:52:47.967233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:25.878455
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
I would reverse the judgment of the lower Court and enter judgment n.o.v. for Bauman and certainly for Clarence and Marie Freeman. The Freemans are landowners, and a possessor of land is not and never *33has been until the Majority have by implication made him today, an insurer or guarantor.
Where I differ from the majority Opinion about Bauman is that it was not reasonably foreseeable that a 7-year old child would get into and drive a heavy tractor up a hilly slope while his father went to the men’s lavatory. If a judgment n.o.v. were not entered, I would grant a new trial in the interest of Justice. If defendant, who was absent, should have foreseen that a 7-year old boy would get in and drive a heavy tractor, why should not plaintiff, who was present, have foreseen and guarded himself against it?