United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt

Background

A landowner owned about twenty acres on the edge of Iola, Kansas, where an old acid-and-zinc plant once stood. After the building was torn down, a basement or cellar area filled with water that looked clear but was poisoned by sulphuric acid and zinc sulphate. Two boys, ages eight and eleven, entered the area on July 27, 1916, were poisoned in the water, and died. The parents sued and won a jury verdict; that judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the owner must keep land safe for children who go onto it without permission. The Court, writing for the majority, said there is no general duty to make land safe for trespassing children and reversed the jury’s verdict. The Court explained that liability can arise if an owner knowingly creates and exposes an attractive danger that effectively invites children, but that this rule must be applied cautiously. In this case the Court found insufficient proof that the pool had invited the children or that it could be seen from places where the children were lawfully present.

Real world impact

The ruling makes it harder for families to win when children enter private land without permission and are harmed by hidden dangers. Landowners will not be automatically liable for attractive hazards unless evidence shows the owner invited or should have expected children to come. The decision narrows the circumstances in which the long-discussed “attractive hazard” rule applies.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the pool looked like an inviting swimming spot, was unguarded and poisonous, and that reasonable juries could find the owner negligent under long-standing precedent; that view would have left the jury verdict intact.