Recent Case Concerning a Landowner's Duty to Trespassing Children In this recent case, a landowner was aware that children walked down a public road adjacent to his property. The landowner stored a disabled van near his shed. He kept the shed locked and, had never seen children near the shed or the van. Evidence was also presented that the children had been told to stay off of such areas of the property. On the day of the accident, a boat had been moved into the shed and it contained a full tank of gas in the auxiliary tank. One child crawled through a gap between the locked shed doors and took some of the gasoline from the boat's tank back to the van and his friends. An explosion occurred. One child was killed and another badly burned. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the requirements of Section 339(a) of the Restatement (second) of Torts must be strictly met before a landowner will be held liable. The requirements of that Section are: Generally a landowner or possessor owes no duty to trespassers. However, there are some exceptions which include: • There is a condition existing on the property which causes the owner or possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass; • The condition on the property involves an unreasonable risk of serious bodily harm or death; • The children, due to their youth, do not discover the condition or recognize the risk, and • The value to the landowner or possessor in --- the condition and the burden of removing it are minimal or slight as compared to the risk should the owner or possessor fail to use reasonable care. Simply knowing that children are in the vicinity or that children walked down a public road past the condition was not sufficient. The landowner or possessor did not know or have reason to know the children were likely to trespass. A landowner or possessor is not liable simply because a child may trespass. There must be knowledge or a reason to know that a child will trespass before a landowner or possessor can be held liable. If the landowner or possessor in this case had seen the children playing in or around the van or shed or even if the landowner had been presented that others were aware of the children playing near or in this are in the past, the outcome of this case may well have been different. It is important that a thorough investigation of the facts surrounding an accident or injury is conducted. An essential element of the plaintiff's claim in this case could not be met. Gregory S. Walz is thorough in his investigation of cases and will be prepared to meet or present the claims or defenses of his clients.