Copfer v. Golden, 135 Cal.App.2d 623, 288 P.2d 90 (1955). Opinion for the court: Vallee, J., concurring opinion: Parker Wood, Acting P.J. and Ashburn, J., pro tem.
2. Statement of the Case This is a case about potential tort liability of a landowner when a minor child sustains personal injuries while playing on his property.
3. The Facts Golden (D) owned an empty lot next to the apartment building in which Copfer (P) lived. At the time, there was on the property various materials, including a two-wheeled tubular frame stripped-down trailer, all of which was owned and placed there by Golden (D). Having no other place to play, children living in the apartment house played on Golden's (D) lot and materials. Golden (D) had previously observed the children playing there and told them to leave. Evidence tended to suggest that Copfer (P) was playing on the tubular frame when she fell and was injured.
4. Procedural History and Outcome Here The case was tried by the court without a jury, and a judgment was returned for Copfer (P). The appellate division affirmed.
5. Issue(s) Was there a duty on the part of defendant-landowner to protect minor children against reasonably foreseeable dangers that existed on his property?
6. Holding A duty rested on defendant to protect the young and heedless from themselves and guard them against perils that reasonably could have been foreseen.
7. Reasoning Due to immaturity and lack of judgment, a child is incapable of appreciating all possible dangers in trespassing. While parents or guardians are duty-bound to look out for the child, it is neither customary nor practicable to keep a child under constant observation. If a child is to be protected, the person who can do it with the least inconvenience is the one upon whose land a child strays. The interest in unrestricted freedom to make use of the land may be required, within reasonable limits, to give way to the greater so...