Copfer v. Golden

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 appreci

. . .
sis for concluding that the condition which caused Garcia's (P) injury should have been recognized as constituting an unreasonably great risk of serious bodily harm which she was unable to discover or appreciate because of her immaturity. Accordingly, the evidence did not warrant a recovery. 7. Reasoning A possessor of land is not under a duty to prevent every possibility of harm, but only to exercise due care as to those risks which he should realize are unreasonably great and threaten serious bodily harm in a way unlikely to be appreciated by children whose trespass he should foresee. The ability to appreciate danger varies, of course, with the age of the child. There can be no recovery if the child is of sufficient age and mental capacity to look out for herself under the circumstances presented. 8. Separate Opinions, Including Dissents The separate, concurring opinion by Shenk, Traynor, and Peters, J.J., does not appear. The concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Spence, however, appears and states that while he concurs in the judgment of reversal, he believes that it should be accompanied with directions to enter judgment in favor of Soogian (D), so as to remedy the resulting inconsistency with the majority opi
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
History Outcome, Professor Fuller, Garcia Soogian, Justice Spence, Peters JJ, Items Note, PJ Ashburn, Professor Fuller's, Justice Traynor, White PJ, attractive nuisance, concurring opinion, garcia soogian, swimming pool, liability landowner, dissenting opinion, 9 items note, separate concurring, separate opinions, 8 separate, including dissents, separate concurring opinion, 8 separate opinions, separate opinions including, opinions including dissents,
Approximate Word count = 2478
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)