Mounsey V. Ellard Case Analysis

Question Presented

Under Massachusetts law, does Richard Melville a twelve-year-old boy, non-tenant of 666 Elm Street, a building owned by C.D. Management Corporation (“C.D Management”), assaulted in their basement, fall within the category of people that C.D. Management owes a duty of reasonable care?

Brief Answer

No, he does not. The rule in Massachusetts is that landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to those that are lawfully on their property. There are exceptions to this rule when the landowner knows of a trapped trespasser or when it is reasonably foreseeable that a child may trespass. Richard Melville does not fall into either of these exceptions.

Statement of Facts

On November 1, 2014 Richard Melville, was riding the school

Ellard, “A common duty of reasonable care which the occupier owes to all lawful visitors.” Mounsey, 363 Mass. 693, 707 (1973). A police officer slipped and fell on ice that had accumulated on the defendant’s property after delivering a criminal summons. Prior to this case there had been three classifications of visitors, invitee, licensee, and trespasser. After this the case there were only two classifications, lawful and unlawful. Based on our facts Richard Melville was not a lawful visitor, no one invited him into 666 Elm St. nor was he on any official business, therefore he is considered unlawful and not owed the same duty of care as a lawful

“There is a common law duty of reasonable care by a landowner or occupier to prevent harm to foreseeable child trespassers.” Soule, 378 Mass. 177, 182 (1979). In Soule, an eight-year-old was electrocuted when he climbed an electric company’s tower. Hunters and children commonly used this tower. These facts are not similar to ours. C.D. Management had no reason to foresee that children would trespass in their basement laundry room. They had coin-operated laundry machines in their basement. C.D. Management could reasonably foresee that someone wanting to do their laundry would trespass in their basement, but Richard Melville was not in their basement to do his laundry. Since C.D. Management could not foresee Richard Melville trespassing, they do not owe him a duty of reasonable care. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 231 Section 85Q says that a landowner may be liable for physical harm suffered by child trespassers on their land. If all of the criteria are met then this is true. Condition ‘A’ states, “The place where the condition exists is one upon which the landowner knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass.” Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231 § 85Q. As stated earlier C.D. Management could not foresee Richard Melville trespassing on their property. Therefore the statute does not apply to Richard