Haskins v. Grybko

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · Torts

TortsTrespassersNegligenceWrongful deathtrespasserduty of careordinary negligencewilful wanton reckless conduct

Facts

The defendant leased and possessed a cultivated twenty-acre tract used to raise squash, with brush and trees near the northerly boundary. At dusk, while standing beside his automobile on his own lot near the northwesterly corner, he heard rustling in the brush about fifty feet away, saw a moving object about eighteen inches high, believed it to be a woodchuck, and fired at it. The next morning he found the body of the intestate. The trial judge found there was no evidence showing why the intestate was in the area and that the intestate was a trespasser either on the land of a third party north of the leased premises or on the defendant's leased lot.

Issue

May the plaintiff recover for ordinary negligence where the evidence shows only that the decedent was a trespasser either on the defendant's land or on a third person's land, but does not show that he was not trespassing on the defendant's land at the time of the shooting? More specifically, what duty did the defendant owe depending on the decedent's location and status?

Rule

The defendant's duty depends on the relation of the injured person to the defendant at the time of the injury. If the injured person is merely a trespasser on the land of a third person, the defendant must exercise reasonable care so that the person is not harmed by the defendant's negligence. But if the injured person is a trespasser on the defendant's land, the defendant is not liable for mere negligence and owes only a duty to refrain from intentional injury and from wilful, wanton, and reckless conduct. A plaintiff who fails to show that the decedent was not trespassing on the defendant's land cannot recover by proving only ordinary negligence.

🔒

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.

Evan Pike leases a blueberry field outside Concord, New Hampshire. At dusk, while standing on his leased land, he carelessly fires toward movement near a stone wall and injures Nolan Reese, who had climbed over the wall and was wandering inside Evan's field without permission.

If Nolan sues and proves only that Evan acted carelessly, what is the strongest argument about Evan's liability?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that the defendant's duty depends on the injured person's relation to the defendant at the time of injury. If the injured person was trespassing on the defendant's land, the defendant is not liable for ordinary negligence, though the defendant must refrain from intentional injury and wilful, wanton, and reckless conduct. Because Nolan was on Evan's land without permission and the plaintiff proves only carelessness, ordinary negligence is insufficient.