Maryland case law › Herring v. Christensen

Herring v. Christensen

252 Md. 240 (1969) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: Affirmed✓ Good law
HoldingThree-year-old Jeff Herring wandered onto the unfenced premises of Edwin O.

Per Curiam. Appellant, Jeff Herring, a three year old infant, by his father and next friend, Roger L. Herring, and appellant Roger L. Herring, individually, brought suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County on August 23, 1967, to recover damages for personal injuries that the infant sustained when he wandered onto the property of the appellees, Edwin O. and Edna F. Christensen, and was burned by a trash fire that the appellees maintained on their unfenced premises. The lower court sustained the appellees’ demurrer without leave to amend on the ground that under Maryland law appellees owed no duty to the child who was a trespasser or at best a bare licensee. It is well established law in Maryland that “the owner of land owes no duty to a trespasser or licensee, even one of tender years, except to abstain from wilful or wanton misconduct and entrapment.” Levine v. Miller, 218 Md. 74, 79 , 145 A. 2d 418,421 .

See Carroll v. Spencer, 204 Md. 387 , 104 A. 2d 628 ; Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co., 77 Md. 535, 26 A. 973 ; Duff v. United States, 171 F. 2d 846 (4th Cir.). Appellants agree that this is a correct statement of the law, but urge this Court to adopt a new* rule of law as set forth in Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 339 (1965), a liberal version of the attractive nuisance doctrine. The problem

This is a preview of Herring v. Christensen. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.