United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt

Supreme Court of the United States · Torts

TortsAttractive nuisanceTrespassersLandowner liabilityattractive nuisancetrespassing childrenimplied invitationlicense

Facts

The petitioner owned a twenty-acre tract in Iola, Kansas, where it had formerly operated a plant and had left a basement and cellar after tearing the building down. In July 1916, water had accumulated there; it appeared clear but was dangerously poisoned by sulphuric acid and zinc sulphate, which the petitioner knew. The respondents' children, ages eight and eleven, came onto the land, went into the water, were poisoned, and died. A traveled way passed within about 100 to 120 feet of the place, but the opinion states there was no evidence that the water was what led the children to enter the land or that children were in the habit of going there.

Issue

Can a landowner be held liable for the deaths of trespassing children caused by a hidden danger on the land under an attractive-nuisance theory when there is no showing that the dangerous condition lured the children onto the land or that the children were habitually drawn to that place? Does a nearby road or path itself amount to an invitation to leave the road and enter the land?

Rule

If children are trespassers, a landowner owes no general duty to keep the land safe for them or free from hidden dangers unless the owner has directly or impliedly invited or licensed them to come there. Mere temptation is not invitation; to trigger any such duty, the dangerous condition must be shown to have induced the children to enter the land, or there must be facts such as habitual resort by children that justify implying a license. A road across or near the land is not an invitation to leave it except at its end.

🔒

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, Ohio, Rowan Materials, LLC owns an abandoned lot containing a concealed pit covered by weeds. Ten-year-old Eli Moreno cuts across the lot as a shortcut to a corner store and falls in. There is no evidence that children usually enter the lot and no evidence Eli knew about the pit before stepping onto the property.

If Eli's parents sue Rowan Materials for negligence, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The majority rule is that children do not have a greater right than adults to enter another's land. If the child is a trespasser, the owner owes no general duty to make the land safe or remove even hidden dangers unless the child was directly or impliedly invited or licensed to come there. Here, Eli entered as a trespasser, and there are no facts showing invitation, inducement by the dangerous condition, or habitual resort by children. (Derived from United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt (n.d.).)