Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintiffnegligenceappealwillduty of carecommon law

plaintiffdefendantappealsummary judgmentsustainedcommon law

Related Cases

Colosimo v. Gateway Community Church, 424 P.3d 866, 868 Utah Adv. Rep. 82, 2018 UT 26

Facts

In 2012, A.C., a 16-year-old boy, and his cousins trespassed onto the roof of a building owned by Gateway Community Church. While attempting to climb down, A.C. was electrocuted due to faulty wiring of a sign on the roof. The boy's parents filed a wrongful death suit against the church, claiming negligence. The church argued it owed no duty to A.C. as he was a trespasser, and the courts ultimately agreed, finding insufficient evidence of a duty under common law or the city sign ordinance.

A teenage boy died from injuries he sustained while trespassing on the roof of a one-story building owned by a local church. Due to faulty wiring of a sign, he was electrocuted while attempting to climb down.

Issue

Did Gateway Community Church owe a duty of care to A.C. under common law or the municipal ordinance regulating signs, given that A.C. was a trespasser?

We now must decide whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.

Rule

A possessor of land generally owes no duty to a trespasser except to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring them. Exceptions exist for known trespassers or dangerous conditions, but the plaintiff must show that the landowner knew or should have known of constant trespassing or a dangerous condition.

Absent a showing that the defendant owed any duty, the plaintiff's claim has no merit, and he or she may not recover.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Gateway had a duty under sections 334, 335, and 339 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. It found that the Colosimos failed to demonstrate that Gateway knew or should have known of constant trespassing on the roof or of the electrified condition. The court concluded that two instances of trespassing over a decade did not meet the threshold for establishing a duty under the exceptions to the general rule regarding trespassers.

The court of appeals affirmed the district court's holding that the Colosimos failed to show that Gateway owed a duty to A.C. under the common law or under the Ordinance.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' decision, concluding that Gateway owed no duty to A.C. as a trespasser and that the Colosimos did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.

The court's decision to dismiss the Colosimos’ section 339 claim was correct on alternative grounds—the Colosimos failed to produce evidence, as required by section 339(b), that Gateway knew or had reason to know about the defective wiring or the electrified metal flashing and that these conditions created an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children.

Who won?

Gateway Community Church prevailed in the case because the court found that it owed no duty to A.C. as he was a trespasser and the parents failed to establish the necessary elements of their negligence claims.

Gateway moved for summary judgment, arguing that it owed A.C. no duty because he was a trespasser.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc., 347 F.3d 672, 62 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1199

Maddux v. Donaldson, 362 Mich. 425, 108 N.W.2d 33, 100 A.L.R.2d 1

Watson v. Rheinderknecht, 82 Minn. 235, 84 N.W. 798

Morton v. Petitt, 124 Ohio St. 241, 177 N.E. 591, 10 Ohio Law Abs. 574

Kelly v. VinZant, 287 Kan. 509, 197 P.3d 803