Hanners v. City of Ashland
| Citation | 331 S.W.2d 729 |
| Parties | Wilson HANNERS, Administrator of the Estate of Larry Eugene Hanners, Appellant, v. CITY OF ASHLAND, a Municipal Corporation, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 20 November 1959 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
P. H. Vincent, Ashland, John L. Smith, Catlettsburg, for appellant.
A. W. Mann, Arthur T. Bryson, Jr., Ashland, for appellee.
CLAY, Commissioner.
The plaintiff's son drowned while swimming in a reservoir maintained by defendant City of Ashland. In this suit for damages the trial court directed a verdict for defendant.
The basis of plaintiff's claim is that the reservoir constituted an attractive nuisance and the defendant negligently failed to guard or fence it.
This reservoir was a properly constructed concrete basin which was filled with water from a depth of 12 to 35 feet. There was no protective device immediately around the basin, although the reservoir area was enclosed by a barbed wire fence. It was shown that in the summertime children, as well as adults, often frequented this reservoir to swim. The parties in their briefs refrained from advising us exactly how the accident happened, but we assume the plaintiff's son, a child eight years old, drowned while swimming. There is nothing to indicate this unfortunate tragedy was caused by any unusual features of the premises.
The narrow question in the case is whether or not the attractive nuisance doctrine extends to an open water hazard, such as this reservoir.
This case is controlled by the decision and reasoning in Schauf's Adm'r v. City of Paducah, 106 Ky. 228, 50 S.W. 42. There a seven year old child drowned while wading out into an abandoned gravel pit filled with water. In view of the fact the premises did not have a concealed danger, and considering the practical impossibility of preventing trespassing boys from engaging in athletic sports around water, it was held the city was under no duty to guard against such contingency as drowning. The principle was followed in Von Almen's Adm'r v. City of Louisville, 180 Ky. 441, 202 S.W. 880, and has not been departed from in this state. This view is generally accepted in the great majority of other jurisdictions. See extensive note in 8 A.L.R.2d 1254.
Plaintiff appellant asks us to liberalize the principle of attractive nuisance so as to encompass such water hazards, but our expressed inclination is to restrict rather than enlarge the doctrine. Jarvis v. Howard, 310 Ky. 38, 219 S.W.2d 958; Goss v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Superior Court, In and For County of Maricopa
...determine whether SRP has attractive nuisance liability, it avails them nothing under these circumstances. Accord Hanners v. City of Ashland, 331 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Ky.1959) (reservoir cannot be considered an attractive nuisance in light of costs of safeguards); Frensley v. Gravity Drainage D......
-
Senogles v. Carlson
...Miss. 740, 173 So.2d 892, 898 (Miss. 1965) (explaining that a 6-year-old could understand the danger of drowning); Hanners v. City of Ashland , 331 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Ky. 1959) (stating in a case involving an 8-year-old that "the possible hazard of use [of bodies of water] is generally apprec......
-
Mason v. City of Mt. Sterling, 2001-SC-0813-DG.
...that the attractive nuisance doctrine does not apply to artificially created ponds and other bodies of water. See Hanners v. City of Ashland, Ky., 331 S.W.2d 729 (1959) (city not liable for drowning death in reservoir); Schauf's Adm'r v. City of Paducah, 106 Ky. 228, 50 S.W. 42 (1899) (city......
-
Davis v. Cunningham
...also, Brown v. Reliable Iron Foundry, Inc., 174 Cal.App.2d 294, 344 P.2d 633; Appling v. Stuck (Iowa), 164 N.W.2d 810; Hanners v. City of Ashland (Ky.App.), 331 S.W.2d 729; Beasley v. Guerriero (La.App.), 123 So.2d Under the circumstances of this case, it is difficult to believe that a reas......