Hayko v. Colorado & Utah Coal Co., 11002.
| Docket Nº | 11002. |
| Citation | 235 P. 373, 77 Colo. 143 |
| Case Date | April 06, 1925 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
235 P. 373
77 Colo. 143
HAYKO
v.
COLORADO & UTAH COAL CO.
No. 11002.
Supreme Court of Colorado
April 6, 1925
Casemaker Note: Portions of this opinion were specifically rejected by a later court in 489 P.2d 308
Department 2.
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Henry J. Hersey, Judge.
Action by George Hayko, by his next friend, Elizabeth Hayko, against the Colorado & Utah Coal Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
[77 Colo. 144] Jacob J. Lieberman and Charles Rosenbaum, both of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Dines, Dines & Holme, Tyson S. Dines, Robert E. More and Milton J. Keegan, all of Denver, for defendant in error.
DENISON, J.
In an action by Hayko for personal injuries the court directed a verdict [235 P. 374] for the defendant company, and he brings error.
The plaintiff, a boy in his tenth year, with a playmate of about the same age, entered an open rough board shack, say 12 feet square, of the defendant on its premises, and abstracted therefrom a box of dynamite caps. The plaintiff tried to pick out the contents of one of them with a pin. It exploded and blew off parts of several fingers. The back of the shack but not the open door could be seen from near by, where people usually passed.
Two points are made for plaintiff: That the shack and caps were an attractive nuisance; and that, regardless of that, it was negligent anyhow to keep the caps where children could get them. It is, of course, claimed that upon either of these propositions the question is one of fact and not of law and so for the jury and not for the court.
[77 Colo. 145] Taking up the second proposition first: We know of no general legal duty, either to children or adults who enter without invitation, express or implied, to keep dangerous things from one's land or to use care about them, and yet plaintiff's argument premises such a duty. It may be conceded, as far as this point is concerned, that I may not willfully set a trap, e. g., a spring gun, that I owe a duty of care so as not to entrap one whom I have impliedly invited, as by a walk and steps built up to my front door, or a child whom I have tempted to trespass, and that what would not be a trap to an older person would be to a very young one, but these points do not reach the plaintiff's proposition, and we do not assent to it.
Upon the first proposition: It is argued that the shack and the box of caps were, under the doctrine of the so-called 'turntable cases,' an 'attractive nuisance,' to maintain which, even on one's own premises, was negligence; that plaintiff was a child, was attracted by them, was injured in consequence, and so is entitled to damages.
The defendant makes several...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, No. C--31
...other Colorado cases in this area show a similar harshness due to the status classification system. Hayko v. Colorado and Utah Coal Co., 77 Colo. 143, 235 P. 373 (1925) involved a 10-year old boy who entered an open shack on the defendant's premises. The shack contained a box of dynamite ca......
-
S.W. v. Towers Boat Club, Inc., Supreme Court Case No. 12SC391
...is only an exception to the general rule limiting the liability of landowners as to trespassers....”); Hayko v. Colo. & Utah Coal Co., 77 Colo. 143, 146, 235 P. 373, 374 (1925), overruled in part byMile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 489 P.2d 308 (1971) (“While [a landowner] owe......
-
SW v. Towers Boat Club, Inc., No. 11CA0935.
...of Colorado's rule that a landowner owes no duty to make or keep premises safe for a trespasser. See Hayko v. Colorado & Utah Coal Co., 77 Colo. 143, 147, 235 P. 373, 374 (1925), overruled in part by Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 489 P.2d 308 (1971), superseded by§ 13–21–1......
-
Pocholec v. Giustina
...the special rule relating to the liability of landowners to trespassing children can not apply. Hayko v. Colorado & Utah Coal Co., 1925, 77 Colo. 143, 235 P. 373, 39 A.L.R. 482; Goss v. Shawnee Post No. 3204, V.F.W. of United States, Ky.1954, 265 S.W.2d 799; Brown v. Salt Lake City, 1908, 3......
-
Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, No. C--31
...other Colorado cases in this area show a similar harshness due to the status classification system. Hayko v. Colorado and Utah Coal Co., 77 Colo. 143, 235 P. 373 (1925) involved a 10-year old boy who entered an open shack on the defendant's premises. The shack contained a box of dynamite ca......
-
S.W. v. Towers Boat Club, Inc., Supreme Court Case No. 12SC391
...is only an exception to the general rule limiting the liability of landowners as to trespassers....”); Hayko v. Colo. & Utah Coal Co., 77 Colo. 143, 146, 235 P. 373, 374 (1925), overruled in part byMile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 489 P.2d 308 (1971) (“While [a landowner] owe......
-
SW v. Towers Boat Club, Inc., No. 11CA0935.
...of Colorado's rule that a landowner owes no duty to make or keep premises safe for a trespasser. See Hayko v. Colorado & Utah Coal Co., 77 Colo. 143, 147, 235 P. 373, 374 (1925), overruled in part by Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 489 P.2d 308 (1971), superseded by§ 13–21–1......
-
Pocholec v. Giustina
...the special rule relating to the liability of landowners to trespassing children can not apply. Hayko v. Colorado & Utah Coal Co., 1925, 77 Colo. 143, 235 P. 373, 39 A.L.R. 482; Goss v. Shawnee Post No. 3204, V.F.W. of United States, Ky.1954, 265 S.W.2d 799; Brown v. Salt Lake City, 1908, 3......