X hits on this document





36 / 60

at 362; Guenther ex rel. Guenther v. G. Grant Dickson & Sons, Inc.. 170 Ill. App. 3d 538,

543 (2d Dist. 1988); Alop v. Edgewood Valley Cmty. Ass’n, 154 Ill. App. 3d 482, 485-87

(1st Dist. 1987). Under this principle, “the possessor is not subject to liability to a child

who in fact discovers the condition and appreciates the full risk involved, but none the

less chooses to encounter it out of recklessness or bravado,” even if the condition cannot

be deemed obvious to all children. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339, cmt. m.5

Put another way, when a danger is objectively obvious as a matter of law, that sets

a floor on the level of understanding that is deemed imputed to all children; a particular

child’s subjective understanding is relevant only if it augments this knowledge, and thus

“further negates any duty” owed on the part of the defendant. Osborne v. Claydon, 266

Ill. App. 3d 434, 441 (4th Dist. 1994). This is “‘not merely a matter of contributory

negligence . . . but of lack of duty to the child.’” Colls, 212 Ill. App. 3d at 934 (emphasis

in Colls; quoting DOBBS, supra, PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS § 59, at 409); see also

Newby ex rel. Newby v. Lake Zurich Cmty. Unit Dist. 95, 136 Ill. App. 3d 92, 105 (2d

Dist. 1985); O’Keefe v. S. End Rowing Club, 414 P.2d 830, 843 (Cal. 1966)

(“[C]ontributory negligence is a matter of defense, to be litigated . . . only after the

plaintiff has proved . . . the defendant’s duty . . .. [I]n actions founded on section 339 of

the Restatement it is part of the Plaintiff’s case to prove that ‘because of his youth’ he did

5 In other jurisdictions as well, courts have been “firm in their insistence that if the child is fully aware of the condition, understands the risk which it carries, and is quite able to avoid it, he stands in no better position than an adult” trespasser. DOBBS, supra, PROSSER AND KEETON ON TORTS § 59, at 408; e.g., Vega ex rel. Muniz v. Piedilato, 683 A.2d 845, 852-53 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996) (because “deposition testimony” showed that plaintiff “had discovered the danger,” “comparative negligence is not even considered,” and “defendants owed no duty”); Long v. Manzo, 682 A.2d 370, 376 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996); Merrill v. Cent. Me. Power Co., 628 A.2d 1062, 1063-64 (Me. 1993); Miller v. River Hills Dev., 831 S.W.2d 756, 763 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).

  • -

    27 -

Document info
Document views222
Page views222
Page last viewedSat Jan 21 15:06:59 UTC 2017