Heider v. Michigan Sugar Co.

134 N.W.2d 637, 375 Mich. 490

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: February 21, 1966
• Docket: Calendar 6, 7, Docket 49,890, 49,891
• Status: Published

Opinions

Kelly, J.

Plaintiff brings these companion cases under the death by wrongful act statute (CL 1948, § 691.581 [Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp §27.711]), claiming that his sons James (12-1/2 years of age) and David (8 years of age) were drowned in a pond on defendant’s premises and that their deaths were caused by defendant’s negligence.

Plaintiff demanded a jury only in the David Heider case, and defendant’s request for jury trial in the James Heider case was denied. The cases were consolidated for trial, one a jury case and the other a nonjury case.

At the conclusion of plaintiff’s proofs, defendant moved for a directed verdict “for the reason that the plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence * * * that would tend to establish any responsibility on the defendant for the death of the children.” The court took the motion under advisement and reserved decision in accordance with the terms of the Empson act.

February 15, 1961, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff-administrator of the David Heider estate in the sum of $125,000.

February 28, 1961, defendant filed its motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding verdict, on the grounds that the verdict was against the clear preponderance of the evidence, contrary to the great weight of the evidence, and clearly excessive.

May 17, 1962, the trial court directed the entry of a judgment in the nonjury case of J ames Heider in the amount of $40,989.65, and on the same date denied defendant’s February 28, 1961, motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding verdict in the David Heider case, said motions having been under consideration by the court during the time he was deliberating on the James Heider nonjury case. Defendant then moved for new trial in the nonjury case and this also was denied, the court relying on its opinion denying the motions in the David Heider case.

Question No. 1: Was the verdict and judgment in each case against the clear preponderance of the evidence and contrary to the great weight of the evidence?

James and David Heider were half-brothers and did not live together. James was raised by and lived with his grandparents since he was 8 days old. His mother and father (plaintiff Donald Heider) were divorced and the father contributed nothing to James’ support.

David, the younger, lived with his mother and younger brother and sister 3 blocks from the grandparents’ home, in Sebewaing, Michigan.

The father, plaintiff Donald Heider, was in Jackson prison serving a sentence of from 10 to 20 years on an armed robbery conviction at the time of the accident.

Defendant’s 200-acre tract of land is located north of the village limits of Sebewaing. In order to conduct its sugar beet processing operation, it was necessary to prevent beet particles and waste containing limestone, calcium carbonate, et cetera, from running into the Saginaw bay. To meet this problem and the requirements of the water resources commission, defendant, in 1944, commenced building a series of auxiliary ponds which finally culminated in 8 ponds, varying in size from 5.9 acres to 27.1 acres. The ponds are separated by dikes 12 feet high and wide enough to accommodate a motor vehicle for travel. There are no public roads on defendant’s premises.

The pond in which the boys drowned was known as pond No 3, 27.1 acres in size and., at the time of the accident, was around 7 feet deep. Said pond was located approximately in the center of defendant’s tract of land.

A pipe approximately 4 feet from the top of the embankment of pond No 3 emptied water and waste products into the pond. This chemical waste prevented freezing at the outlet and covered the surface of the water with a foamy substance for an area of 10 feet by 8 feet.

Sunday afternoon (December 21, 1958) the 2 boys left the home of their grandparents about 3 -.30 p.m., in subzero weather, informing the grandparents they were going to trap muskrats. When they failed to return, the grandmother conducted a search, to no avail. The marshal of Sebewaing was notified and the marshal, firemen, and citizens of Sebewaing conducted a search for well over an hour before any one thought of the possibility of the boys going onto defendant’s property.

A bicycle was found on the C. & 0. railroad right-of-way 300 feet north of the public roadway and footprints led from this point along the tracks for about half a mile, then across a ditch to an island in the center of pond No 3 and, after circling about, the steps led to the point where the pipe was emptying into the pond. There was a bunch of frozen foam about 3 feet from where the footprints ended.

The court in a written opinion held that the cause of death was the negligence of defendants in the maintenance of its premises contrary to legal principles, stating:

“Although none of defendant’s employees was shown to have specific knowledge that children trespassed upon defendant’s premises to trap, they knew that trespassers came upon defendant’s land during the hunting and trapping seasons and that traps were set at the ponds to catch muskrats which frequented them and actually did considerable damage to company property by digging holes in defendant’s dikes. Defendant company put up ‘no trespassing’ signs at least twice a year but knew they did not remain in place and often were ignored. # * *

“On the basis of a careful consideration of all the evidence and the now well established law of this State, this court concludes that neither the 2 boys nor their guardians were guilty of contributory negligence in this case and that the sole, proximate cause of their deaths in this tragic accident was the negligence of the defendant company in the maintenance of its premises contrary to the following legal principle:

“ ‘A possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly. intrude upon a limited area thereof, is subject to liability for bodily harm there caused to them by his failure to carry on an activity involving a risk of death or serious bodily harm with reasonable care for their safety.’ (Lyshak v. City of Detroit, 351 Mich 230; Nielsen v. Henry H. Stevens, Inc., 359 Mich 130; 2 Restatement of Torts, §§ 334, 339.)”

The trial court’s misinterpretation of our Lyshak and Nielsen decisions, supra, requires emphasis that the legal principle enunciated in these opinions was that defendant in each instance was aware of the fact that infant trespassers were subjecting themselves to danger upon defendant’s property. To establish this important point beyond question, not only in regard to this opinion but for future reference, the following excerpts from Justice Tat,rot Smith’s opinion in Lyshak are set forth (pp 232, 238-241, 244, 249, 251):

“The main thrust of plaintiff’s argument on appeal is devoted to the proposition that defendant city knew that children ‘were constantly coming onto the golf course during the summer months, just as they had been doing for over a long period of time.’ From this knowledge, says plaintiff, there arose ‘a duty on the part of defendant city of Detroit to keep a lookout for such children who might be on the golf course and, in the exercise of ordinary care, to discover their presence and the presence of infant plaintiff in a dangerous situation as presented itself on the day infant plaintiff was injured and exposed to the danger and peril of being struck by a flying golf ball.’ (p 232) * * *

“It is clear that the plaintiff himself was not on the golf course as a matter of right. * * * A powerfully-driven golf ball in flight is a projectile of lethal qualities, as this record amply demonstrates. * * * The difference between a golf course and a rifle range, then, as a playground for children, is a difference of degree only.

“If duty is born of danger, the duty of the city of Detroit, knowing that children frequent a certain area, is clear. * * *

“To what degree does the landowner still wear the feudal mantle of special privilege, exempting him from the ordinary rules of negligence when children (yes, trespassing children) are known to frequent land upon which he is carrying on an enterprise hazardous to them? Can he simply say, ‘They are trespassers’ and continue as if they were not there? Can a landowner blindly throw the firing lever and explode blasting charges in a vacant lot that, to his knowledge, is used daily as a playground by (trespassing) neighborhood children? (pp 238-241) # # #

“A distinction has been drawn between the mere condition of the premises (a child falls into a natural pond) and a dangerous situation on the premises caused by the active intervention, the affirmative acts, of the owner (the child is carelessly run down by the owner’s horse and buggy), (p 244) * * *

“We have mentioned, but we have not emphasized, the distinction between an injury arising from a. condition of the premises and one arising from affirmative dangerous conduct by the owner. * * * In the interests of accuracy, it should be pointed out that the case before us does not involve injury from the mere physical condition of the premises, whether natural or artificial, and hence many of the cases cited by the city against recovery (e.g., Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich 1; Graves v. Dachille, 328 Mich 69) are not precedent for the situation before us. Here we have injury from dangerous activities conducted in a limited area which trespassers in general are known to frequent. * * * Upon these facts, infant plaintiff, even if a trespasser, was a known trespasser (pp 249, 251).”

Justices Dethmers and Edwards wrote concurring opinions in the Lyshak Case. Justice Dethmers emphasized the fact that the defendant’s awareness of the infant trespasser was a controlling feature, stating (p 253):

“Here defendants knew of the presence of small children within the range of a flying golf ball before the foursome. Whether, under such circumstances, it was negligence to drive or permit the driving of a ball in the direction of such small children presented, as I think, a question of fact for the jury.”

Justice Edwards, while stating that Lyshak overruled cases “where Michigan has barred recovery for injuries involving infant trespass — holding the effect of child trespass to be identical with that of adult trespass,” also said (p 253): “This case concerns a child of tender years — obviously too young to look out for himself. His presence in a place of potential danger, beside a golf course fairway, was known to agents of defendant who were on the tee at the time the golf ball was driven, which caused the loss of the boy’s eye.”

In Nielsen v. Henry H. Stevens, Inc., 359 Mich 130 (relied upon by the trial court), a 7-year-old boy was injured when defendant’s truck collided with the boy’s bicycle while he was riding it in a concreted area owned by defendant. This case had been tried and determined in the lower court prior to the Lyshak Case. It was sent back for a new trial, but the fact that defendant knew of the child’s presence on its property was made clear by Justice Edwards when he stated (p 132):

“In Lyshak, as in the instant case, the Court was dealing with a fact situation where plaintiff alleged active negligence on the part of the defendant toward a minor child whose presence on defendant’s property in a place of danger was known to defendant.”

Lyshak referred to, but did not repudiate, our early 1872 decision in Hargreaves v. Deacon, 25 Mich 1, where we held:

“Owners of private property are not responsible for injuries caused by leaving a dangerous place thereon—but not immediately adjoining a highway— unguarded, where the person injured was not on the premises by permission, or on business, or other lawful occasion, and had no right to be there.”

Likewise, Lyshak referred to our 1950 Graves decision ³ but, again, did not overrule or repudiate this decision, but merely stated that the facts in Graves (p 249) “are not precedent for the situation before us.” In the Graves Case we considered the question of whether damages should be awarded in an action for the death of a 6-1/2-year-old boy by drowning in stagnant water which had accumulated in a sump on defendants’ property incident to an excavation operation. After stating (p 74), “We do not find in the record that to defendants’ knowledge any boy had previously gone swimming in this sump, or that anyone had ever called to defendants’ attention that such might happen with fatal results,” we held that the trial judge had erroneously denied defendants’ motion for a directed verdict because of the absence of proof that would justify a jury finding that defendants were guilty of gross negligence.

Lyshah overruled cases referring to defendant’s responsibility to trespassers only where the facts disclose that defendant owner was aware that child trespassers were entering his property and subjecting themselves to danger and possible harm.

Prior to Lyshah, decisions of this Court did not distinguish between a child and an adult trespasser. In Ryan v. Towar, 128 Mich 463 (55 LRA 310, 92 Am St Rep 481), which was referred to with approval in Petrak v. Cooke Contracting Co., 329 Mich 564, it was held: (1) An invitation or a license to cross the premises of another cannot be predicated on the mere fact that no steps have been taken to interfere with such practice; (2) There is no difference between children and adults as to the circumstances that will warrant the inference of an invitation or a license to enter upon another’s premises; and (3) The owner of land is not liable to trespassers thereon for injuries sustained by them not due to his wanton or wilful acts.

The trial court in the present case erroneously concluded that while it was not shown that defendant’s employees had “knowledge that children trespassed upon defendant’s premises to trap,” he could apply the principle of Lyshak and Nielsen, supra, because “they knew that trespassers came upon defendant’s land during the hunting and trapping season.”

In the recent case of Slinker v. Wallner (1960), 258 Minn 243 (103 NW2d 377), the Minnesota supreme court upheld a directed verdict for the defendant by the trial court in an action for the wrongful death of a child by drowning, stating (pp 248, 251) :

. “In upholding recovery in these eases we have gone a long way in placing responsibility upon the occupier of premises to safeguard trespassing children. However, there must come a point where liability does not exist as a matter of law unless occupiers of land are to be held liable merely because children might stray onto their premises. It would seem that reasonable foreseeability is and must be a necessary prerequisite to liability. * * *

“Here, the record is completely devoid of any evidence from which an inference could reasonably be drawn that the owners or occupiers of the premises involved knew or had any reason to know that children could be expected to play on these grounds any inore than it is generally known that they might be found anywhere.”

“Reasonable foreseeability” as a necessary prerequisite to liability is not established in this record, which is completely devoid of any evidence from which an inference could be drawn that defendant owner knew, or had any reason to know, that infant children would be trapping, playing, or trespassing upon the property.

The record sustains appellant’s statement:

“The pond in question was approximately a quarter of a mile from the nearest highway. A more desolate area could not be imagined. It was midwinter and below zero weather. There was no reason to believe children would be in the vicinity. No employee of the defendant company had ever seen children trespassing on its premises or had specific knowledge that children trespassed thereon, as is conceded by the trial judge.”

In the 1951 Petrak decision, supra, we considered whether defendant-owner of road-making equipment was liable for the death of an 11-year-old boy who was killed when a 1,500- to 2,000-ponnd beam fell on him while he and another boy were playing with a barrel of tar. In upholding a directed verdict for defendant, we, after establishing the principle that the attractive nuisance doctrine is conservatively applied in this State, said (p 568): “A reasonably prudent person would not anticipate that children in the vicinity would be likely to play with the trailer.”

Applying the principles established in Petr ah, we can and should conclude that “a reasonably prudent person would not anticipate” the tragic events that led up to the death of the 2 boys on defendant’s premises.

We conclude that under the evidence in this record and under the decisions of this Court, including Lyshah and Nielsen, supra, the judgment in each case was against the clear preponderance and contrary to the great weight of the evidence.

Question No. 2: Should the provisions of PA 1953, No 201 ( CLS 1961, § 300.201 [Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 13.1485]) be considered by this Court when said statute was not raised in the pleadings, nor at the trial, in the motion for new trial, or in reasons and grounds for appealf

PA 1953, No 201, provides:

“No cause of action shall arise for injuries to any person who is on the lands of another without paying to such other a valuable consideration for the purpose of fishing, hunting or trapping, with or without permission, against the owner, tenant or lessee of said premises unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct of the owner, tenant or lessee.”

Appellant states:

“Candor compels our admission that this statute escaped the attention of this brief writer until it was noted in the December 8, 1962, publication of the negligence law section bulletin of the State Bar of Michigan. It is cited nowhere in the Michigan Reports. We think the force of the enactment is to deprive the plaintiff of any cause of action under the proofs in this case. It is not a matter of affirmative defense nor of limitation. Its language is to abolish any such cause of action. It has no limitation. The cause of action no longer exists. It applies to ‘any person’. The statute in question expresses the public policy of the State. It places the law with reference to trespassing hunters, fishermen and trappers, including minors, where it was prior to the more recent adjudications dealing with trespassing children and beginning with Lyshak v. City of Detroit, 351 Mich 230.”

Appellee objects to consideration of the statute by this Court in this appeal because it was not raised in the pleadings, nor at trial, motion for new trial, or in the reasons and grounds for appeal; that it is an affirmative defense and cannot be raised as part of the general issues.

My answer to Question No. 1 discloses that without the application of this statute, on the record submitted, the verdict and judgment in each case should be set aside, but as this opinion is written before acceptance or rejection by my Associates, I am answering Question No. 2.

The general rule is well established that upon appellate review, parties cannot assume a position inconsistent with or different from that taken at the trial and are restricted to the theory upon which the case was defended in the court below.

This rule has its exceptions, and in Dation v. Ford Motor Co., 314 Mich 152 (19 NOCA NS 158), we held that the general rule that a question may not be raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court is not inflexible and will not be applied when consideration of a claim sought to be raised is necessary to a proper determination of the case.

Especially is this true wdiere an applicable statute has been overlooked. It has been held that the party’s failure to call the trial court’s attention to a relevant statute does not preclude the appellate court from considering it.⁴

There is no claim in this case that defendant was guilty of gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct. There is no testimony that even infers that permission was given to the boys, or that a valuable consideration was paid by them for the privilege of going upon defendant’s premises.

The statute states there must be proof of (1) payment of a valuable consideration, or (2) proof of gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct before a party who is on the land of another for fishing, hunting, or trapping can seek damages for injuries. In the absence of proof sustaining one of these requirements, the statute specifically states “no cause of action shall arise.”

The total lack of proof to meet any of these requirements makes this statute applicable and should be considered by this Court as one more reason why the conclusion reached in answer to Question No. 1 should also be the answer to Question No. 2.

The cases are reversed and remanded to the lower court for entry of judgments of no cause of action. Defendant may recover costs.

Dethmers, J., concurred with Kelly, J.

3 Graves v. Dachille, 328 Mich 69.

4 See 4 CJS, Appeal and Error, §§ 241, 242; Adley Express Co., Inc., v. Town of Darien, 125 Conn 501 (7 A2d 446); Bedenbaugh v. Adams (Fla, 1956), 88 So2d 765; Yannuzzi v. United States Casualty Co., 19 NJ 201 (115 A2d 557); Huntress v. Estate of Huntress (CCA 7), 235 F2d 205 (61 ALR2d 682).