My question concerns an incident that took place in a local city. Some teenagers were hanging out in an old city-owned building (smoking/drinking, whatever). The building was an old sewage treatment plant, which the city deactivated decades ago. In the course of their revels, one kid stepped on a rotten board, and fell through the floor-he was seriously injured. Is the city liable for this injury? The building was in obvious disrepair, and it did have a warning/no entry sign on it.
I’ve seen this go both ways. In my home town, a similar incident occured in an abandoned courthouse that was owned by the city. “No Trespassing” signs were prominently displayed, so the court ruled that the city had no liability. However, in another similar incident in a major city nearby, the court ruled that the city had to make access impossible, and since they hadn’t, the building was an “attractive nuisance” and the city was liable.
At no point in either case was the errant teenager considered to have been responsible for his own actions.
The STATE confers Sovereign Immunity to itself and it’s Municipalities, therefore that question and case law has to be determined, there is no one real answer per se.
Governments serve 2 functions, Governmental and Proprietary, Immunity and it’s level of, may or may not be similar in both.
This is incorrect. If the attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply, it’s because the teenager has been deemed responsible for his own actions.
The general rule is that a landowner has no duty to trespassers. Minors are an exception, under the “attractive nuisance” doctrine, which says landowners are liable to trespassing kids if they are not capable of apprehending the dangers in the area “due to their youth”. It’s codified in statute in Massachusetts (MGL Ch. 231, §85.)
As lawbuff notes, states and their subdivisions have sovereign immunity and are only liable to the extent they choose. This generally manifests as a statutory cap on damages in claims against the state. No idea what the law is in this area in Mass.; it could preclude damages entirely.
Here is an overview on Ohio law, asa general reference, and discusses the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act and Governmental and Proprietary functions.
Of course state law is exclusive in nature.
http://www.gallaghersharp.com/useful_tools/Municipal%20Liability%20-%20An%20Overview.pdf
The classic case cited as “how stupid is the law?” was of the teens climbing on a school roof (supposedly planning to break in). One walks on a skylight and falls through, sues, and wins.
However, the skylight was painted over, so it was not obvious the kid was walking on a sheet of glass. The court’s logic was “it does not matter what he was doing up there. There was a hazard, improperly marked. Anybody - a child, a worker, would have faced the same hazard. The penalty applies because they failed to protect anyone from a danger.”
I suppose the question is whether the building was properly barricaded or not. Simply putting up “no trespassing” may not be enough. The owner may have to show they really made an effort to prevent a hazard, and the trepasser(s) went through extra effort to bypass that hazard.
I suspect the word “reasonable” applies; unless you have the right to immunize yourself from lawsuits.
I bet also that decision was based on NEGLIGENCE of X degree, since the skylight was not of the so called “open and obvious” element to alert the trespasser.
You misconstrue. In the latter case that I mentioned, the city was found liable for the attractive nuisance because the trespassers were, in fact, minors.
Right, but in the first case the city would have been found not liable because the teenager was responsible for his actions. You said that didn’t happen in either case.
Probably ruled they were too young to understand what “assumption of risk” meant.
IIRC part of that ruling was that painting over the skylight was in of itself illegal.
I keyed in some select words and the case is the Ricky Bodine school case, at FN12 to start, and according to this the gravaman was Negligence as I suspected.
…The teenager sued the school district for negligence and obtained a substantial settlement.[16]…
Interesting, thanks…
I believe the point is that an owner of a dangerous property has a duty to ensure people come to no harm. Simply posting a sign is not enough. Even boarding up the building is not enough - if you are aware that people habitually find ways to enter. you have to show you’ve gone to reasonable lengths to keep the property secure. Nobody expects you to build a 10 foot concrete wall around the building, but you cannot ignore that the entry has been left pried open for weeks or months.
How much effort did the trespasser have to put into bypassing the security?
Furthermore the building must not itself meet legal standards. Suppose the stairs are not up to code and I’m trespassing and the stairs collapse. My understanding (fair or not) is since the stairs were in an illegal condition then it is the owner’s responsibility. I’m not sure if a building being condemned would change that, but it certainly has implications if a building is just abandoned.