Hill v. National Grid
11 A.3d 110
R.I.2011Background
- Twelve-year-old Austin Hill was injured running on a vacant grass lot when he tripped over a protruding metal post and injured his thigh.
- The lot was owned by defendant National Grid, a public utility, which the Hills claimed negligently maintained.
- National Grid contended Austin was a trespasser and owed no duty to him, except possibly under the attractive nuisance doctrine.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for National Grid, ruling there was no evidence the company knew or should have known children trespassed.
- The Supreme Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings, reviewing de novo the propriety of the summary judgment.
- Facts presented a dispute over National Grid’s knowledge of trespass likelihood and the dangerous condition, as well as maintenance practices and trespasser policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether knowledge of trespassers was shown | Hill asserts National Grid knew or should have known children would trespass. | Grid argues it need not know about trespassers under Haddad and that foreseeability was lacking. | Issues of fact exist; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether the dangerous condition was known to the defendant | Posts created an unreasonable risk of harm that Grid knew or should have known about. | There was no evidence Grid knew of a dangerous condition on its land. | Material facts in dispute; jury could find knowledge. |
| Whether attractive nuisance doctrine applies to child trespassers in Rhode Island | The doctrine imposes a duty to protect trespassing children from artificial conditions. | Doctrine limits apply or is inapplicable given the circumstances and case law. | Doctrine considered; decision remanded for factual resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc., 109 R.I. 59, 280 A.2d 93 (1971) (adopted attractive nuisance framework)
- Bateman v. Mello, 617 A.2d 877 (R.I. 1992) (no foreseeability of dangerous pipe to trespassing child)
- Wolf v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 697 A.2d 1082 (R.I. 1997) (train trestles not attractive nuisances)
- Plainfield Pike Gas & Convenience, LLC v. 1889 Plainfield Pike Realty Corp., 994 A.2d 54 (R.I. 2010) (summary judgment should be denied where genuine issues exist)
- Tantimonico v. Allendale Mutual Insurance Co., 637 A.2d 1056 (R.I. 1994) (limits on application to child trespassers)
- Mariorenzi v. Joseph DiPonte, Inc., 333 A.2d 127 (R.I. 1975) (early consideration of Haddad framework)