Scurti v. City of New York

New York Court of Appeals · 1976 · Torts

40 N.Y.2d 433 (1976)

Updated July 19, 2026

TortsPremises liabilityLandowner negligenceTrespassersreasonable care under the circumstancesforeseeabilitytrespasserlandowner duty

Facts

Fourteen-year-old John Scurti entered a railroad yard in Queens through a hole in a fence at the rear of a city-owned playground and climbed onto a freight car on mainline track No. 5. He was electrocuted when he came into contact with a high-voltage catenary wire powering locomotives. There was proof that several holes existed in the fence, well-worn paths led to those openings on both sides, and four teenagers had previously been electrocuted or seriously injured by overhead high-tension wires in that yard on four separate occasions before Scurti's death. Scurti did not have permission to enter the yard or climb on the train.

Issue

After abandonment of the traditional trespasser-licensee-invitee distinctions, whether defendants who owned or operated the yard, tracks, train, wires, or adjoining park could still be liable under ordinary negligence principles for the death of a boy who entered the railroad yard without permission. Also, whether the MTA and LIRR could be liable despite lacking ownership or control over the instrumentalities that caused the injury.

Rule

A landowner's liability to one injured on the property is governed by the standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, with foreseeability as a measure of liability. The fact that the injury occurred on the defendant's property and that the plaintiff entered without permission are relevant circumstances, but they are no longer conclusive; prior categories and distinctions retain only probative value in determining whether there was a breach of duty. The court must still decide as a threshold matter whether the facts support an inference of negligence or lack of 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.

In Cleveland, 13-year-old Mateo Ruiz slipped through a broken gate into a freight storage yard owned by Harbor Line Terminal. He climbed a parked railcar and was severely burned by an exposed overhead power line; evidence shows neighborhood children had used the same opening for months, and two prior injuries from the line had occurred there.

If Harbor Line Terminal moves for dismissal solely because Mateo entered without permission, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that liability is governed by ordinary negligence principles—reasonable care under the circumstances—with foreseeability as a measure of liability. Entry without permission remains relevant, but it is no longer conclusive. Here, the broken gate, repeated child intrusions, and prior similar injuries would permit an inference that Mateo's presence and injury were foreseeable, so dismissal solely on trespasser status would be improper. (Derived from Scurti v. City of New York (1976).)