Court Opinion

ID: 9742317
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:10:39.436185+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:30.919417
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Judge,
dissenting.
While I agree with the majority’s conclusion neither the positive control act test nor the willful or wanton misconduct test apply here, I also believe the entrapment — affirmative control test does not apply here either.
In both Gaboury and French, relied upon by the majority, the cable stretched across the entrances there in question were discernible with the exercise of reasonable diligence. The stretching of such a cable across such a path on private property, in and of itself, does not constitute a trap. In Gaboury, the majority said:
The closing of a driveway by a cable, a gate, or other form of obstruction is not so unusual a situation in our society that it can be considered a dangerous or hazardous condition. It certainly is a condi*1072tion that can be determined by ordinary and reasonable care
Gaboury, 446 N.E.2d at 1315. Thus, the Kampschaefers’ cable was not a trap nor was it a willful or wanton act, ipso facto. The undisputed facts show the Kampschae-fers placed the cable across their private path after two confrontations with trespassers on ATV’s. Given a legal right so to do, the placing of such a cable for such purposes cannot be a willful or wanton act, as a matter of law, absent affirmative evidence to the contrary. Id. at 1315." There is no such evidence or inference they did so here.
I would affirm the trial court in all things.