Bennett v. Stanley Case Brief

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 Trial Court found for Stanley on summary judgment. Bennett appealed. • The Trial Court determined that the Bennetts were trespassers. • The only duty owed to trespassers is the duty to refrain from willful, wanton, and reckless conduct. • The Appellate Court affirmed. Bennett appealed. • The Ohio Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for trial. • 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 Ohio Supreme Court adopted the attractive nuisance doctrine, and remanded the case to a jury find if the swimming Project Wonderful -Your ad here, right now, for as low as $0pool 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.