Patterson v. Proctor Paint & Varnish Co., 21 N.Y.2d 447 (1968)

A landowner may be liable for injuries to children trespassing on their property if the landowner knows children frequent the property, the property is easily accessible, and the landowner leaves highly volatile substances accessible to the children.

Summary

A 12-year-old boy, Matthew Patterson, was severely burned when he ignited paint solvent he found in an open yard adjacent to the Proctor Paint & Varnish Co. plant. The yard, unfenced and accessible to children, contained cans collecting dripping paint solvent. Patterson, after spilling some of the solvent on his clothes, lit a fire and poured the solvent on it, causing a flare-up that ignited his clothing. The trial court dismissed the complaint, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the company could be liable given the accessibility of the property, the known presence of children, and the presence of a volatile substance. The court reasoned that the rigid application of the trespass doctrine has diminished and that the volatility of the substance presented a question of fact for the jury.

Facts

Proctor Paint & Varnish Co. operated a paint and varnish manufacturing plant in a residential area of Yonkers. Adjoining the plant was an open, unfenced yard. Fill pipes on the plant’s outer wall dripped paint solvent into cans placed by the company. The solvent, resembling water, was a flammable liquid with a flash point of 103 degrees Fahrenheit, making it both combustible and explosive. The company knew that children frequently played in the yard.

On October 29, 1961, Matthew Patterson, 12, and his younger brother entered the yard by climbing over a wall. Matthew picked up a pail of solvent, spilled some on his clothes, lit a fire, and poured the solvent on the fire, resulting in severe burns.

Procedural History

The trial court dismissed the complaint at the close of the plaintiffs’ case, finding it legally insufficient. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision. Two justices dissented in the Appellate Division, believing the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and reviewed the dismissal.

Issue(s)

Whether a landowner is liable for injuries sustained by a child trespassing on their property when the child is injured by a volatile substance left accessible on the property, where the landowner knew children frequented the property.

Holding

Yes, because the landowner left the property open and accessible to children, knew that children used it for play, and left highly volatile substances accessible to them; a case prima facie is made out if a child is thus injured.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals recognized that the rigid application of the trespass doctrine to children injured by dangerous conditions on land had diminished over time. The court distinguished earlier cases that had denied recovery based solely on the child’s trespasser status, citing more recent decisions that had found liability despite the child’s lack of legal right to be on the property. The court emphasized the added element of dangerous volatile substances, noting that the child’s active intervention in igniting the substance did not preclude recovery. Citing Travell v. Bannerman, 174 N.Y. 47 (1903), Kingsland v. Erie County Agric. Soc., 298 N.Y. 409 (1949), and Carradine v. City of New York, 13 N.Y.2d 291 (1963), the court noted that liability had been found in similar cases involving dangerous substances even when the children were trespassing. The court explicitly stated, “The main body of decisions in this court instructs us that the rule today is that if the owner of land leaves it open and accessible to children; if he knows that children use it for play; and if he leaves accessible to them highly volatile substances, a case prima facie is made out if a child is thus injured.” The court found that the volatility of the paint solvent was a question of fact for the jury. The court reversed the dismissal and ordered a new trial.