Ross McFerron


Traditionally, Missouri courts have maintained the general rule that a possessor of land owes no duty of care to trespassers. However, Missouri courts have adopted some well-defined exceptions to the general rule, particularly in situations where trespassers are easily foreseeable. But, prior to the Humphrey v. Glenn decision in 2005, possessors of land had never owed a duty to adult trespassers regarding a condition on the land. In Humphrey, the Missouri Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether possessors of land had a duty to warn "constant" trespassers of dangerous artificial conditions on the possessors' property. The court determined that such a duty of care should exist and, for the first time, explicitly adopted section 335 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. With this decision, the court added another "well-defined" exception to the general "noduty" rule regarding trespassers to land. This Note examines the court's analysis in adopting this new exception to the general "no-duty" rule and argues that, given the narrow scope of section 335 and the rationale behind the general rule regarding trespassers, Humphrey was correctly decided.

Included in

Law Commons



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.