Abstract
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.
Recommended Citation
Ross McFerron,
Safer Destination for Trespassers, A,
72 Mo. L. Rev.
(2007)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/mlr/vol72/iss1/15