High court gives limited protection to trespassers

Thursday, July 14, 2005

By Marc Powers

Nevada Daily Mail

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Land holders can be liable for damages if a trespasser is injured due to potentially dangerous artificial conditions on the property, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday.

Eric Humphrey was severely injured on Oct. 7, 2000, while riding an all-terrain vehicle on Mississippi County farmland leased by Charles and Dale Glenn. Humphrey was clotheslined by a cable barrier the Glenns had erected to keep out trespassers.

Humphrey sued and a Mississippi County jury assessed $100,000 in damages. The jury, however, found Humphrey 50 percent at fault so the Glenns' liability was set at $50,000.

The Glenns appealed, and in May 2004 the Missouri Court of Appeals Southern District in Springfield reversed the jury's decision on the grounds that land holders have no duty under state law to protect trespassers from harm.

In the unanimous decision written by Judge Laura Denvir Stith, the Supreme Court established a limited exception to that general rule. Land possessors can be held responsible, the court said, if they maintain an artificial and dangerous condition in an area that they know attracts trespassers and fail to adequately warn of the condition.

Stith wrote that there was ample evidence at trial that the Glenns knew their farm was subject to frequent trespassing and that the cable barrier, which wasn't marked at the time of the accident, had the potential to cause injury. The Glenns said that they repeatedly had posted signs warning of the barrier in the past but that vandals always tore them down.

Although the Glenns argued that Humphrey's failure to notice the barrier, not their failure to warn of it, caused the injury, the court ruled that the jury could have accepted that position but chose not to.

The court, however, overturned the original verdict and damage award and ordered a new trial in the case because of a faulty instruction to the jury.

The case is Eric Humphrey v. Charles Glenn and Dale Glenn.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: