Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire · Torts

Tortstrespassersduty of landownerschild trespassersnegligencetrespasserchild trespasserpremises liability

Facts

The plaintiff, an eight-year-old boy, was in the defendants' mill room without sufficient evidence of their consent or permission, so the court treated him as a trespasser. The defendants' machinery was in perfect order, properly managed, and operated in the usual and ordinary manner, with no change made because of the plaintiff's presence. The plaintiff caught his hand in the gearing, but the record did not disclose exactly how the accident occurred or show evidence that he was incapable of understanding the danger or avoiding it. The only negligence attributed to the defendants was their failure to forcibly eject him after they allegedly should have known he could not understand a command to leave.

Issue

Whether the owners of premises operating machinery in the ordinary course of business owe a legal duty to an eight-year-old trespasser to protect him from open and ordinary dangers on the premises by warning him, stopping operations, or forcibly ejecting him. More specifically, the question was whether the plaintiff could recover when the defendants committed no active misconduct and the injury resulted from the ordinary condition of the premises and the plaintiff's own conduct.

Rule

Actionable negligence requires breach of a legal duty. As to a trespasser, a landowner may eject him using only necessary force, but must abstain from any further intentional or negligent acts of personal violence and from causing injury by active intervention that due care could avoid; the landowner is not bound to warn the trespasser of hidden or secret dangers arising from the condition of the premises, nor to protect him from injuries arising from his own acts or the ordinary condition of the premises. The plaintiff's infancy does not, by itself, impose any greater legal duty on the landowner.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Toledo, 9-year-old Eli Navarro followed his older cousin through a side door into the machine room of Riverton Textile Works, a private factory. Some employees had previously brought relatives into the building without management's knowledge, but whenever supervisors discovered it, they ordered the visitors out. Eli was injured when he reached into an exposed set of rollers that was operating normally.

If Eli sues Riverton Textile Works for negligence, which is the strongest argument for the factory under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority rule first asks whether the plaintiff was on the premises with consent or permission. Unauthorized practices by others, not shown to be known to or accepted by the owner, do not support an inference of permission. If Eli is a trespasser, the owner owes no duty to warn or protect him from injuries arising from the ordinary condition of the premises, including machinery operating in the usual way, absent active intervention causing the injury. (Derived from Buch v. Amory Manufacturing Co. (n.d.).)