Court Opinion

ID: 9744220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:57:08.173124+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:47.645245
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION RYAN, J. I cannot concur in the opinion of the majority of this court. Within the tests prescribed by section 339 of the Restatement of the Law of Torts 2d and those announced by our Supreme Court in Kahn v. James Burton Co., 5 Ill2d 614, 126 NE2d 836, the defendant did not owe the plaintiff the special duty created by section 339 and the Kahn case in favor of trespassing children. The special duty therein announced is to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect children. (Section 339 (e).) Once the special duty has been created, whether or not the defendant has exercised the reasonable care required thereby is a question of fact for the jury to determine. However, the existence of the duty is not a question of fact but is a question of law and it must be determined only by the court. Prosser on Torts, 3rd edition, 207; Restatement of the Law of Torts, 2d edition, § 328B. The plaintiff has contended and the majority opinion has adopted the contention that the sole test of liability is the foreseeability by the defendant of harm to children. With this I cannot agree. The majority opinion quotes from page 625 of the Kahn case to the effect that the true basis of liability is the foreseeability of harm to the children. This statement has been lifted from the context of the rest of the paragraph and thus has been given an entirely different meaning. The portion of the paragraph preceding this statement in the Kahn case states the general rules that the land owner is under no duty to keep his premises in any particular condition to promote the safety of the trespasser. That infants have no greater rights to go upon the lands of others than adults and that their minority of itself imposes no duty upon the occupier of land to expect them or prepare for their safety. The paragraph then sets forth an exception to the general rules as follows: “It is recognized, however, that an exception exists where the owner or person in possession knows, or should know, that young children habitually frequent the vicinity of a defective structure or dangerous agency existing on the land, which is likely to cause injury to them because they, by reason of their immaturity are incapable of appreciating the risk involved, and where the expense or inconvenience of remedying the condition is slight compared to the risk to the children. In such cases there is a duty upon the owner or other person in possession and control of the premises to exercise due care to remedy the condition or otherwise protect the children from injury resulting from it. (Citation.) The element of attraction is significant only in so far as it indicates that the trespass should be anticipated, the true basis of liability being the foreseeability of harm to the child.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, it is not in all cases of injury to trespassing children that foreseeability of harm is the test of liability. Foreseeability is the test only when the exception to the general rule is brought into existence by the presence of the situations enumerated in the paragraph above quoted: (1) owner knows or should know young children frequent the vicinity of the dangerous agency and, (2) the agency is one the owner knows or should know is likely to cause injury to the children, and (3) the children because of their immaturity are incapable of appreciating the risk involved, and (4) the expense or inconvenience of remedying the condition is slight compared to the risk to the children. The paragraph then states: “In such cases there is a duty upon the owner . . . to use due care . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Thus only in such cases where the special duty to trespassing children has been created by the existence of the factors enumerated in the paragraph under consideration is the duty to use due care imposed upon the landowner. Once this duty to use due care is created then and only then is foreseeability the test of liability. Foreseeability is the test to be applied in determining negligence and negligent conduct does not impose liability upon a landowner for injury to trespassing children unless the special duty to use due care has been created by the existence of the circumstances enumerated. Section 339 of the Restatement of the Law of Torts, 2d edition, states the same exception to the general rule as is announced in the Kahn case as follows: “A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if “(a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and “(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and “ (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and “(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and “ (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.” The conditions set out in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) correspond with those conditions enumerated in Kahn necessary to create the special duty to trespassing children. As I have above stated the question of whether a defendant owes a duty to a plaintiff under an established set of facts is not a question of fact but is a question of law to be determined by the court. However, evidence must be presented to establish the facts which, in turn, create a duty. When this evidence is capable of having different inferences drawn therefrom or when the evidence concerning the facts relating to the duty is conflicting, then the question of the existence of the facts which create the duty is a question of fact to be determined by the jury under proper instructions of the court relating to the duty. If however there is no question as to the existence or nonexistence of the facts which create the duty or if the evidence concerning the same is so overwhelming as to compel acceptance of a fact as proved by a reasonable man, then there is no question concerning duty to be submitted to the jury. See Restatement of the Law of Torts, 2d edition, section 328B, comment on clauses (a) and (b). In light of this, we must examine the evidence as the same relates to the circumstances which are enumerated in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of said section 339 and the counterparts of these subsections as the same are set out in the Kahn case. In doing so we are not trying to ascertain the foreseeability of harm to the child. We are rather trying to determine the existence of circumstances stated in subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of said section 339 which if present would create the duty of the defendant set out in subsection (e) of said section 339, i. e., duty to use reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the children. If the evidence in relation thereto is not susceptible to different inferences or is not conflicting then the jury has no role to play in determining the question of duty. I am basing my dissent in this case primarily on subsection (c) of section 339 of the Restatement which is fully set out above. We are not dealing here with an infant of tender years who inadvertently fell into a pit filled with water or who inadvertently fell from a bank overlooking the same. We are dealing with a plaintiff who is 16 years, 5^4 months of age, who knowingly dived into the pit. The question presented under subsection (c) of said section 339 is whether this plaintiff because of his youth did not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in so doing. The testimony of the plaintiff himself under cross-examination which is relevant on this point is as follows: Q. “And at the time that this accident occurred, did you consider yourself to be somewhat of an expert in swimming and diving?” A. “I was good.” Q. “Not only from that day but the other four times that you had been there you were aware that the bottom went out from the shoreline approximately two and a half to three feet and then there was a sheer drop-off, weren’t you?” A. “Yes.” Q. “And you didn’t know how deep it was because you had never gotten to the bottom after this drop-off, isn’t that true?” A. “Yes.” Q. “And on the date that you dove and just before you dove, you had been wading in this area and you were aware that two and a half, three feet out there was a sheer drop-off, weren’t you?” A. “Yes.” Q. “When you waded out before you dove, you could only wade out about three feet and then there was a drop-off and you would have to swim, right?” A. “Yes.” Q. “The point at which you arrived at the drop-off —strike that — Let me ask you this question. The shoreline as it extended out for this two and a half or three feet was similar to any other shoreline, wasn’t it, by that I mean you would have a very small amount of water and gradually get a little bit deeper as the bank sloped down, is that correct?” A. “Yes.” Q. “And about the deepest that it got before the drop-off was how deep ?” A. “About three feet.” Q. “And then at the point where the drop-off starts it was abrupt or sheer, isn’t that right?” A. “Yes.” Q. “You had either this day or on previous occasions when you were there explored it to see how deep the water was after you came to this drop-off, hadn’t you?” A. “Yes.” Q. “And then when you got to the point that has been marked on there you made this running dive into the water, right?” A. “Yes.” Q. “The time that you did that you knew there was a shelf that extended some two and a half, three feet out into the water, didn’t you?” A. “Yes.” Q. “And you knew that in order to safely dive you would necessarily have to dive over that shelf into the deeper water, isn’t that so ?” A. “Yes.” Q. “In fact, that was your intention to dive out far enough so that you would miss the bottom or the shelf that was there and dive into the deep water, right?” A. “Yes.” Q. “When you dove you hit, you dove short and hit the bottom, isn’t that what happened?” A. “Yes.” This testimony of the plaintiff indicates not only that he had discovered the condition which gave rise to his injury, but that he was well aware of the existence of the same and that he realized the risk involved, knowing that he had to dive over the ledge in order to safely complete his dive. By virtue of this knowledge the circumstances described in subsection (c) of said section 339 of the Restatement do not exist. There exists no question of fact concerning these circumstances for the jury to determine. As a matter of law, in the absence of the conditions enumerated in subsection (c), the duty to use reasonable care for the protection of the plaintiff did not exist. It is stated in Prosser on Torts, 3rd edition, page 381: “Since the one basic reason for a rule distinguishing trespassing children from trespassing adults is the inability of the child to protect himself, the courts have been quite firm in their insistence that if the child is fully aware of the condition, understands and appreciates the risk which it carries, and is quite able to avoid it, he stands in no better position than any adult with similar knowledge and understanding.” The comment on subsection (c) of section 339 states: “The purpose of the duty is to protect children from dangers which they do not appreciate and not to protect them against harm resulting from their own immature recklessness in the case of known and appreciated danger.” In Jennings v. Glen Alden Co., 369 Pa 532, 87 A2d 206 (1952) an action was brought against the coal company for the recovery of damages for the death of a 13%-year-old boy who drowned while swimming in an abandoned strip mine. The court, relying on subsection (c) of section 339, denied recovery, stating that the duty of a possessor of land to trespassing children does not extend to those conditions the existence of which are obvious even to children and the risk of which are fully realized by them. The dissent in that case was based on the fact that there was no evidence to show that the boy knew of the risk involved in swimming in the flooded mine. In O’Keefe v. South End Rowing Club, 64 Cal2d 729, 51 Cal Rptr 534, 414 P2d 830 (1966) the plaintiff, a high school boy, was injured when he dived from a pier and struck his head on the bottom. The court relying on subsection (c) of section 339 denied recovery because the plaintiff had actual knowledge and appreciated the danger involved. The court quoted that portion of Prosser on Torts quoted above. The majority opinion refers to Skaggs v. Junis, 27 Ill App2d 251, 169 NE2d 684. The Skaggs case is clearly distinguishable from this case. In Skaggs there was evidence presented that there were submerged stumps in the pond and that the plaintiff, when he dived, struck his head on one of these stumps. The dangerous condition which brought about the plaintiff’s injury within the meaning of section 339 was not the pond but the pond with submerged stumps in it. There was no evidence to indicate that the plaintiff had any knowledge of the existence of the submerged stumps. Thus, the conditions of subsection (e) of section 339 were clearly present in the Skaggs case, whereas in our case they have been eliminated by the testimony of the plaintiff himself. The fact that the jury in response to a special interrogatory found that the plaintiff was not guilty of negligence which proximately contributed to his injuries is not controlling on the issue of duty owed by the landowner. The question of the child’s contributory negligence is a separate problem from that of the landowner’s duty. While it is proper to hold that the question of contributory negligence is a jury question (see Skaggs case, supra), the question of whether the facts disclose a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant is, in the first instance, a question of law for the courts. O’Keefe v. South End Rowing Club, supra, at page 843; Jennings v. Glen Alden Co., supra, at page 209. I also cannot agree with that part of the majority opinion which indicates that the defendant should have erected a steel chain link fence 6 feet high, supported by steel posts set in concrete at a cost of from $12,000 to $14,000. The duty is not to prevent the trespass but under the conditions enumerated in section 339 to use reasonable care for the protection of known trespassing children. I am of the opinion that it is a nearly impossible task to erect a boy-proof fence against the ingenuity of a group of teenage boys bent upon having a swim. They were willing to drive a distance of 30 miles to get to this swimming hole. It is doubtful if their ambitions to indulge in this sport could have been deterred by a 6-foot fence. Once they had breached the barrier, they would again be trespassers, and if their presence were known or should have been known to the defendant, the same duty would thereby be placed on the defendant under the conditions of section 339 as would apply if the fence were not there. Again, we must remember that we are not dealing with three, four, or five-year old children who have inadvertently wandered upon the premises. We are dealing with sixteen-year-old boys who drove 30 miles for the express purpose of swimming on this property. The expenditure of $12,000 to $14,000 for the erection of such a fence may be considered an insignificant expenditure when we are talking about the total assets of the defendant Peabody Coal Company. However, the law as announced by the majority opinion is not limited in its application to the Peabody Coal Company alone nor to only the large and wealthy corporations. It applies with equal force to individual owners of every farm pond in this state. I regret the implication of the majority opinion that the owners of these farm ponds must erect a 6-foot steel chain link fence supported by steel posts set in concrete to satisfy any duty they may owe to trespassing children. The plaintiff has cited Dallas v. Granite City Steel Co., 64 Ill App2d 409, 211 NE2d 907, as holding that a required expenditure of $55,000 is not to be considered an excessive burden on the defendant. This case has been cited in the majority opinion. The Dallas case did not hold as the plaintiffs contend. In that case the estimate of the cost to raze all of the old houses was $55,000. The evidence relating to the cost of razing the building and leveling the lot where the plaintiff and other children played ranged from $80 to $200. This is the expenditure which was held insignificant as compared to the risk involved to the children. I do not think in the case now under consideration that we can say that the expenditure of from $12,000 to $14,-000 is a slight burden within the meaning of subsection (d) of section 339. I likewise do not believe that we can say that such an expenditure is “slight compared to the risk to the children” as stated in the Kahn case. For the above reasons I respectfully dissent from the opinion of my colleagues.