Barker v. Parnossa, Inc., 39 N.Y.2d 926 (1976)
A landowner may be liable for injuries to child trespassers caused by a dangerous artificial condition on their land if the landowner knew children were likely to trespass, the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, the children did not appreciate the risk, and the burden of eliminating the danger was slight compared to the risk.
Summary
This case concerns the liability of a landowner for the death of a 12-year-old boy who fell from an abandoned coal silo on the landowner’s property. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s dismissal of the complaint, holding that a new trial was necessary. While acknowledging the traditional rules regarding trespassers, the court emphasized the “child trespasser” (attractive nuisance) doctrine. The court reasoned that the landowner knew children frequently played on the property and the dangerous condition of the silos created an unreasonable risk of harm, factors that warranted jury consideration. The relatively low cost of preventing access compared to the risk of harm to children was also key to the decision.
Facts
Parnossa, Inc. owned a parcel of land with abandoned coal silos. The silos were located near a path commonly used by children as a shortcut to school, accessed through a break in a chain-link fence. Children regularly played on the land, including climbing on the silos. The company’s vice-president knew of this activity. Jeffrey Barker, a 12-year-old, climbed the silos and fell to his death from an interior catwalk. Danger signs were posted, but no guard or caretaker was present.
Procedural History
The plaintiff, Jeffrey Barker’s estate, sued Parnossa, Inc. The trial court’s decision is not specified. The Appellate Division reversed a lower court ruling in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed the complaint. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and ordered a new trial.
Issue(s)
Whether a landowner is liable for injuries sustained by a child trespasser on their property, where the injury was caused by a dangerous condition, and the landowner knew of the children’s presence and the risk posed by the condition?
Holding
Yes, because the landowner had reason to know that children were likely to trespass on the property, the silos presented a significant risk of death or serious injury, and the burden of preventing access was slight compared to the risk to the children.
Court’s Reasoning
Chief Judge Breitel, in a concurring opinion, grounded the decision in the