Class 19, Oct. 2, 2002 Chapter 7, Cont.

1
Class 19, Oct. 2, 2002Chapter 7, Cont.

• Rights and Limitations in the use of Agricultural
  Property
• Quiz 6 ?
• Homework 3 due on Friday or Wed after Oct.
  Break
• Note, do not rewrite the question. Just title the
  question.
• Then, use the information and law to support your
  analysis and answer.

2
Recitation

• Cases Students
• Ciaglo Jason Morehouse Brian Myers
• Lane Scott Priebe Cale Russler
• Katko Donald Shoemaker Lee Stanis
• Mcgaughey Elizabeth Sturgeon Mike
  Veld
• Jones -- Betsy Villwock Richard
  Dobbyn

3
Ciaglo v. Ciaglo

• Ill. App. Ct. 1959, 156 N.E. 2d 376
• Action?
• Negligence
• Issue?
• What degree of care was owed the plaintiff? That
  is, was pl an invitee or license?
• Facts

4
Ciaglo

• Holding
• Rule

5
Ciaglo

• Facts A visiting Mom was injured while picking
  plums on a Wisconsin farm.
• Apparently, a yearling bumped the ladder she was
  on,
• and Mom grabbed a limb for support which broke
  and she fell and was injured.
• Plums were to be for sale by the farmer/son def.
• Trial judge, after the evidence, instructed the
  jury to
• find for the defendant.

6
Ciaglo

• Did the def. know of the animals propensity for
  mischief?
• Holding Affirmed the lower court.
• The trial court held that the pl was a social
  guest or licensee not an invitee or an employee.
  Therefore, the son, def, owed his mother only
  reasonable care.
• A social guest must show active negligence to
  recover, i.e., willful and wanton misconduct must
  be shown.

7
Ciaglo

• Holding
• Minor services of a social guest do not elevate
  them from a licensee to an invitee, and thus
  increase the duty of care owed them to be
  entitled to reasonably safe conditions.
• Standard If the risk of harm cannot not be seen
  by a reasonable and prudent man, it is not
  unreasonable, therefore, no negligence, and no
  liability.

8
Lane v. Titchenel

• App. Ct. of Ill., Fifth Dist., 1990 562 N.E. 2d
  1194
• Action?
• Negligence
• Issue?
• Is this case within the protection of the
  recreational use statute in Illinois?

9
Lane

• Facts
• Holding
• RuleLaw

10
Lane

• Facts
• pl were on def property for a hayride in
  conjunction with a party for Andys Body Shop
• the hayrack was provided by the defendant
  

11
Lane

• - defendant had routinely allowed recreational
  activities on their land without charge
• - trial court granted the defendant a request for
  a summary judgment
• -- (no facts are at dispute for the jury to
  decide,
• and the law is on the side of the movant -- a
  motion maker).

12
Lane --- Holding

• The act defines specific activities covered,
  so the pl argues that since hayrides and wiener
  roasts are not listed the act cant be a
  defense.
• But, the activities of the pl were like
  recreation and other activities mentioned in
  the statute
• Thus, the protection of the rec user statute
  did apply.
• Rule When the Rec User statute applies, its a
  liability defense for negligence

13
Trespassing Hunter

• All recreational user statutes cover hunting.
• i.e., There is no duty of care extended.
• Even without a rec user statute, the duty owed
  to a trespassing hunter is slight.
• If there is a fee charged for hunting, that takes
  the landowner or tenant out from under a rec
  user statute protection.

14
Trespassing Hunter

• No one may hunt without permission from - either
  the landowner
• or tenant if the land is leased.
• (A landowner normally gives hunting rights to the
  tenant, unless, they are reserved in the lease.)
• To hunt without permission is trespassing!
• And to trespass may be a criminal act if there
  has been notice oral or by a sign.
• A No Trespass sign is notice in Indiana.

15
Criminal Trespass

• Criminal trespass, like all criminal offenses, is
  by statute.
• The sheriff may assist once the criminal trespass
  is established. (i.e, the trespasser is out
  there.)
• Next, the prosecutor must take up the case and
  see that justice is done.

16
Katko v. Briney

• S. Ct. of Iowa, 1971 183 N. W. 2d 657
• Action?
• Negligence
• Issue?
• Are the defendants liable for the injury
  delivered by a trap gun to these criminal
  trespassers?

17
Katko

• Holding
• Rule

18
Katko

• Facts This case involves injury to criminal
  trespassers by a trap gun set in an abandoned
  house.
• The plaintiffs were the trespassers who had
  broken into the house to steal antiques.
• The plaintiffs were awarded 20,000 in actual
  damages, and 10,000 in punitive damages.

19
Katko--Holding

• There was no warning of the presence of the
• gun--set to hit the intruder once in the house.
  
• Serious injury was inflicted.
• Trap guns, historically, have been permitted
  only to prevent felonies or for self-defense.
• Rule Reasonable force is allowed to protect
  property, but there is no right to seriously
  injure a trespasser!
• Death or serious bodily injury may be
  inflicted only in self defense.

20
Attractive Nuisance A Rule for Trespassing Youth

• Conditions that are attractive to children due to
  their curiosity and lack of judgment.
• The fault that may results in liability is that
  the reasonable person should have foreseen the
  danger that exists.

21
Attractive Nuisance A Special Rule for
Trespassing Youth

• A possessor of land is subject to liability for
  bodily injury to trespassing young children
  caused by a structure or other artificial
  condition if
• The place of the condition is one the possessor
  knows or should know the children will likely
  enter albeit as trespassers, and
• The condition is one the possessor knows or
  should know involves an unreasonable risk of
  death or serious bodily injury to children, and

22
Attractive Nuisance A Special Rule for
Trespassing Youth

• Children do not realize the risk.
• Utility of maintaining the risk is slight
  compared to the danger.
• The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care
  to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect
  children.

23
McGaughey v. Haines

• S. Ct. of Kansas, 1962
• Action?
• Attractive Nuisance
• Issue?
• Was this situation an attractive nuisance?
  Should it be such as a manner of policy?
• Facts

24
McGaughey

• Holding
• Rule/Law

25
McGaughey

• Facts
• Children who lived next to the defendant farmer
  were attracted to a new tractor and disk.
• They started the tractor, and one fell off ,and
  was run over by the disk.
• The children had been repeatedly told to stay
  away, and they had a familiarity with farm
  machinery, and perhaps its danger.

26
McGaughey

• Holding
• Every item of personal property capable of
  attracting and injuring a child cant be burdened
  by an attractive nuisance status.
• They conclude that a farmer shouldnt have to
  remove his machinery at the end of each dayas a
  matter of public policy.
• The tractor and disk were held not to be an
  attractive nuisance.

27
Jones v. Comer

• S. Ct. of Ark. 1964
• Action?
• Attractive Nuisance
• Issue
• Was this lake an attractive nuisance?

28
Jones

• Facts Several boys who lived nearby were found
  drowned in a neighbors lake.
• The defendant was granted a summary judgment.

29
Jones

• Holding This pond was not an attractive nuisance
• There is no evidence that the old boat or
  anything made this pond an attractive nuisance.
• Rule Short of any unusual element of danger, a
  pond is not an attractive nuisance!??

30
Quiz 6

• 1. A social guest is no longer a valid category
  in Indiana for landowners defending against a
  liability suit.
• 2. Licensees are afforded more protection
• on a landowners premises than Invitees when
  it comes to seeking damages from the landowner.
• 3. A landowner who set an injurious trap may be
  liable to an injured trespasser.

31
Quiz 6

• 4. An injured hunter, in Indiana, would be barred
  from recovery by the Recreational Users law if
  the hunter paid a fee to the landowner.
• 5. A farm pond that attracts children is not
  necessarily an attractive nuisance.