80 A.3d 856
R.I.2013Background
- In Nov. 2005, 17-year-old Steven Burton and four teenage friends illegally entered the abandoned Ladd Center, a property known for trespassing and secured with plywood, chains, and welded grates.
- Inside they found four one-gallon glass bottles of clear liquid in an unlocked locker; the group removed three bottles.
- While exiting through a plywood-covered door, one bottle was dropped and broke, splashing Burton with the liquid, later identified as sulfuric acid, causing severe burns.
- Burton acknowledged he did not seek permission to enter and testified he believed the liquid was hazardous; friends testified they knew they could get in trouble if caught.
- Burton sued the State of Rhode Island for negligence, invoking the attractive-nuisance doctrine; after a bench trial the Superior Court ruled for the State, finding Burton a trespasser and the doctrine inapplicable.
- The Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed, holding Burton was old enough to appreciate the risk and therefore could not invoke the attractive-nuisance exception to the no-duty rule for trespassers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether attractive-nuisance doctrine imposes duty for injury to a 17‑year‑old trespasser | Burton: despite his age, he did not fully realize the risk of taking the bottles, so the doctrine applies | State: Burton was a trespasser and was old enough to appreciate the danger, so no duty arises | Court: Held doctrine inapplicable — Burton appreciated the hazard and acted recklessly, not as a child unable to appreciate risk |
| Whether State shares comparative fault for Burton’s injuries | Burton: State’s failure to secure/remove hazardous bottles shows negligence and comparative fault | State: No duty owed to trespasser, so no negligence to compare | Court: Held no negligence by State (no duty), so comparative-fault claim fails |
| Whether trial justice erred in factual findings regarding knowledge of trespass and hazard | Burton: contends trial justice misapplied youth standard | State: Trial justice’s factual findings supported by record (knowledge of trespass common; Burton recognized hazard) | Court: Affirmed trial justice’s factual findings as not clearly erroneous |
| Whether attractive-nuisance doctrine extends to older adolescents (legal standard) | Burton: doctrine should apply to high‑school‑age youth given modern hazards | State: Doctrine traditionally limited where child can appreciate risk; here plaintiff appreciated it | Court: Applied Restatement §339 and precedent; noted doctrine rarely applies beyond mid‑teens and held Burton could appreciate the risk |
Key Cases Cited
- Reagan v. City of Newport, 43 A.3d 33 (R.I. 2012) (standard for appellate review of trial-justice findings)
- Notarantonio v. Notarantonio, 941 A.2d 138 (R.I. 2008) (deference to trial-justice factual findings)
- Rhode Island Depositors Economic Protection Corp. v. Bowen Court Associates, 763 A.2d 1005 (R.I. 2001) (mixed questions of law and fact and deference to trial justice)
- Hawkins v. Town of Foster, 708 A.2d 178 (R.I. 1998) (deference to trial-justice findings)
- Hill v. National Grid, 11 A.3d 110 (R.I. 2011) (discussing attractive‑nuisance doctrine and no‑duty rule for trespassers)
- Bennett v. Napolitano, 746 A.2d 138 (R.I. 2000) (definition of trespasser)
- Ferreira v. Strack, 652 A.2d 965 (R.I. 1995) (definition of trespasser)
- Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc., 280 A.2d 93 (R.I. 1971) (adopting Restatement §339 attractive‑nuisance formulation)
- Wolf v. National Railroad Passenger Corp., 697 A.2d 1082 (R.I. 1997) (limits on attractive nuisance where danger is obvious)
- Bateman v. Mello, 617 A.2d 877 (R.I. 1992) (foreseeability requirement for attractive nuisance)