M Civ JI 19.07A Duty of Possessor of Land, Premises, or Place of Business to Child Trespasser for Artificial Conditions

[ Because plaintiff was a child trespasser / If you find that plaintiff was a child trespasser ], defendant had a duty to plaintiff only if you find that all of the following circumstances exist:

(1) Plaintiff was injured by an artificial condition on defendant’s [ land / premises / place of business ],

(2) Defendant knew or had reason to know that a child would be likely to trespass on the place where the condition existed,

(3) Defendant knew or had reason to know about the condition and realized or should have realized that it would involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to a child,

(4) Plaintiff, because of [ his / her ] youth, did not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in meddling with it or coming within the area made dangerous by it,

(5) The usefulness to defendant of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger were slight as compared with the risk to the child, and

(6) Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the child.

If you find that all of these circumstances existed, then defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care to put the land in a condition reasonably safe for plaintiff or to carry on activities on the land so as not to endanger child trespassers.

Note on Use

If a child trespasser does not claim injury due to an artificial condition, then M Civ JI 19.07A is inapplicable. In such a case, M Civ JI 19.07 may be given.

This instruction does not affect the applicability of any instructions for immunities or defenses to which the defendant-possessor is otherwise entitled under statute or common law. See MCL 554.583(3).

M Civ JI 19.01 defines “trespasser.”

History

Added November 2015.