Humphrey v. Glenn

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts section 335, recognizing a limited duty to warn trespassers of dangerous artificial conditions when the possessor knows or should know of constant trespassing in the area. The court held that the evidence supported submission of Humphrey's claim but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the verdict-directing instruction used “frequently” rather than the required “constantly” for trespasser intrusion.

Holdings

1. Missouri adopts the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 335 exception. A possessor of land may owe a limited duty to warn adult trespassers of a dangerous artificial condition when the possessor knows or should know that trespassers constantly intrude on the limited area, knows or should know that the condition is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, has reason to believe trespassers will not discover it, and fails to use reasonable care to warn them.
2. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, was sufficient to submit Humphrey's section 335 theory to the jury.
3. The verdict-directing instruction was erroneous because it required the jury to find that trespassers frequently intruded rather than constantly intruded on the limited area. The error was preserved, requiring reversal and a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Missouri should adopt the Restatement (Second) of Torts section 335 exception to the general rule that possessors of land owe no duty to trespassers.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to submit Humphrey's claim under section 335.
3. Whether the verdict-directing instruction was erroneous because it required proof that trespassers frequently, rather than constantly, intruded on the limited area where the dangerous condition existed.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded