Bennett v. Stanley

Bennett v. Stanley
92 Ohio St.3d 35, 748 N.E.2d 41 (2001)

The Bennetts lived next door to the Stanleys, who owned a swimming pool. The swimming pool was abandoned but was half full of rainwater and had frogs and algae growing in it.

There was a gap in the fence between the two properties. The Stanleys knew that unsupervised children lived next door, and there were no warning signs or safety features. Nor was there a 'no trespassing' sign.

The Bennetts' son entered the property and fell in the pool. Ms. Bennett entered the pool to save the son, but both drowned.
The remaining Bennetts sued the Stanleys for negligence.

Bennett argued that the pool created an unreasonable risk of harm to children who would not realize the potential danger.

The only duty owed to trespassers is the duty to refrain from willful, wanton, and reckless conduct.

The Ohio Supreme Court noted that the duty of care owed to children is different than that owed to adults.
The Court looked to the dangerous instrumentality exception owed to child trespassers.

The dangerous instrumentality exception basically says that since children cannot readily foresee danger, there is a duty to protect them from potentially dangerous items, even when they are trespassing.

Restatement of Torts §339 says that a landlord can be liable for physical harm to a child trespasser caused by an artificial condition if:

The landlord knows about the condition and knows children are likely to trespass.
The condition could cause an unreasonable risk of harm.
The children do not discover or realize the risk.
The costs to maintaining/eliminating the danger are slight in comparison to the risk.
The landlord fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the risk and protect the children.
This is also known as the attractive nuisance doctrine.
This doesn't include dangerous natural conditions (like a cliff), only dangerous artificial conditions created by the landowner (like a minefield).

The Court adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine, and remanded the case to a jury find if the swimming pool met the definition.
The Court also ruled that the mother who died in an attempted rescue "assumes the status of the child" and thus was also owed a duty of reasonable care.

Could the mother also have been considered a rescuer as opposed to a trespasser and thus be covered under the rescue doctrine?

This case overturned the older turntable doctrine, which said that it is not the duty of a landowner to exercise care to make it safe for children who are trespassing, only those that are invitees.

Apparently a lot of kids in Ohio were getting hurt playing with 'railroad turntables' and the railroads were able to avoid liability.

Unlike most of the sections of the Restatement of Torts, §339 actually took what was the minority view at the time. In a way it charted new law and shaped the direction of the law, as opposed to just "restating" it.