1. What change does the court make in the duty classifications?

2. What does the dissent say about duty in the case?

3. What precautions would landowners have to take as a result of this decision?

On March 10, 2006, Rodney Wrinkle (appellant/plaintiff) and his friend Raymond Lee observed four or five cows wandering loose in front of property belonging to Gene and Charlene Norman (defendants), and some of the cattle were straying toward the highway that ran between Wrinkle’s and the Normans’ property. Wrinkle was riding his lawn tractor, and he signaled to approaching cars to slow down. Initially riding on his lawn tractor and then going on foot, Wrinkle proceeded to herd the cattle into the Normans’ yard. The Normans’ gate was open, and Wrinkle herded the cows through the gate toward a pen.

A clothesline wire was attached to a pole in the Normans’ yard. As Wrinkle herded the cattle across the Normans’ yard toward the cow pen, one calf strayed into the clothesline wire, caught the line around its neck, and began to choke. Wrinkle grabbed the back of the clothesline and walked around to the other side, flipping the line several times in order to remove the line from the calf’s neck. The calf took off running toward the gate of the pen, apparently catching the clothesline somehow, so that the clothesline caught Wrinkle from behind. Wrinkle’s feet went out from under him, and he landed on his back on a concrete pad. Wrinkle immediately experienced severe pain. Lee helped him get home, and Wrinkle eventually went to the hospital, where he was diagnosed with a broken back. He was hospitalized for 30 days. Afterward, he approached the Normans in person about the injury and later wrote a letter in which he asked that they submit to their insurance carrier a claim for $44,115.72, which was the outstanding balance on his hospital bill. The Normans refused to arrange for payment of the medical expenses.

Wrinkle then filed an action grounded in negligence alleging that the Normans had created a dangerous condition on their property that presented an unreasonable risk of harm by leaving their gate open and by leaving a clothesline wire running across the ground.

The Normans filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the Normans’ motion for summary judgment, holding that Wrinkle was a trespasser on the Normans’ property and they had breached no duty toward him. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Wrinkle appealed.

JUDICIAL OPINION

PER CURIAM … A landowner’s duty to both invitees and licensees is one of reasonable care under all the circumstances. The landowner owes trespassers, on the other hand, only the duty “to refrain from willfully, wantonly, or recklessly injuring” the trespasser.

The [lower] court further held that, even if Wrinkle were privileged by private necessity to enter the Normans’ property, the Normans owed no greater duty of care toward him than they would to a trespasser.

Wrinkle urges this court to adopt the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 197 (1965), relating to private necessity as an exception to the rules of trespass. Wrinkle contends that the Restatement section, if adopted in Kansas, would enhance the duty that the Normans owed him.

We regard the Restatement rules as sound and adopt them with modifications. In our view, they promote a willingness to assist others in times of need without taking on a greater burden of risk than others who enter property as merely casual visitors. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 197 makes it possible for a Good Samaritan to enter the property of another for the purpose of averting great property loss or personal injury without having to suffer the consequences of being deemed a trespasser.

Suppose that an individual hears screams from across the street and sees a neighbor’s house in flames. The individual rushes to the house and attempts to enter it in order to aid someone trapped inside but falls through a rotted step on the way in, injuring himself. Without the two Restatement sections, the would-be Good Samaritan could be found liable for trespass or would not be able to bring an action for negligently maintaining the premises. Applying the Restatement rules, the helpful neighbor would be protected from being the target of litigation himself and would be eligible for damages for the injuries that he suffered as a consequence of the hidden defect.

The duty of reasonable care is essentially the same as the duty under the theory that the Normans were negligent in the manner of storing their clothesline. Because Wrinkle asserts that the injury occurred on the Normans’ property and in the course of attempting to protect the Normans’ calf, it is that theory of negligence that governs the duty of care. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The judgment of the district court is reversed, and the case is remanded.

DISSENTING AND CONCURRING OPINION ROSEN, Justice … A duty to remove any object from one’s property that could in any fashion somehow be a factor in an injury to another person entering one’s property simply increases the possibility of liability and litigation to an absurd level. With some imagination, one can picture a flower pot, a drainpipe, a trash barrel, or a bicycle playing a role in a series of events leading to injury, even if those items are located in perfectly predictable and ordinary locations. …………………..