Lyshak v. City of Detroit

Supreme Court of Michigan · 1957 · Torts

TortsPremises liabilityTrespassing childrenActive negligencetrespasserchild trespassergolf courseactive operations

Facts

A seven-year-old boy entered the city's Redford golf course by crawling through a hole in the fence and was struck in the eye by a golf ball while he was near the fairway with other boys. The record contained evidence that children got onto the course constantly, that responsible city employees knew this, and that posted signs and sporadic efforts to remove children did not stop the practice. The city operated the course and conducted golfing activities there despite that knowledge. In addition, the city's golf professional testified that he personally saw the boys in the fairway before any drives were made from the thirteenth tee.

Issue

Whether the City of Detroit could avoid negligence liability on the ground that the injured child was a trespasser, where the city knew children constantly entered a limited area of the golf course and where the child was actually seen before the ball was driven. More specifically, whether the city owed any duty of reasonable care in conducting dangerous golfing activities under those circumstances.

Rule

A possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area is subject to liability for bodily harm caused there by failure to carry on an activity involving a risk of death or serious bodily harm with reasonable care for their safety. Further, when a trespasser is discovered on the premises, he is not beyond the pale of the law, and any negligence resulting in injury will render the actor liable in damages.

🔒

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, Mira Jensen owns a private recreation field bordered by a neighborhood. For months, children have crawled through a broken section of fence and gathered on the same strip beside the baseball batting cages nearly every afternoon, and Mira's staff discuss the pattern regularly. Without checking whether anyone is there, a grounds employee starts the pitching machine, and a child is struck in the face by a ball.

If the child sues for negligence, which is the strongest basis for imposing a duty despite the child's trespass?

Explanation. The majority adopted the rule that a possessor of land who knows or should know that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area is liable for bodily harm caused there by failure to conduct activities involving risk of death or serious bodily harm with reasonable care. This hypothetical involves repeated intrusion into the same area and an active, dangerous operation. The opinion rejected any absolute no-duty rule for trespassers in that circumstance. (Derived from Lyshak v. City of Detroit (n.d.).)