Also known as: active operation
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Conduct by which an actor has created a force or series of forces that remain in continuous and active operation up to the moment of harm.
A freight company operates remote-controlled locomotives through an unlit yard at night. Albert Allen regularly crosses the yard as a trespasser to reach a store. The operator backs a locomotive through the area without sounding a horn and strikes Albert. Because the company was engaged in active operations, it owed Albert a duty of reasonable care even though he was a trespasser. The failure to warn supports liability for the resulting injury.
EcoFill runs bulldozers to compact trash at its landfill. The manager knows Aisha Ahmed regularly enters through a fence gap to scavenge. An operator pushes a trash mound into that zone without checking for people and buries Aisha. The bulldozing constitutes active operations that required reasonable precautions once the company knew of the trespasser. The lack of any check before moving material supports a finding that the company breached its duty.
The city stores sand piles in a public works yard. Workers have repeatedly seen children climb the fence and play there. Operator Lopez begins loading gravel with a front-end loader without checking the piles and buries eight-year-old Alexis Archer. The loading is an active operation conducted with knowledge of likely trespassers. The failure to take precautions such as using a spotter supports liability for the child's injuries.
Nancy Christian was the tenant of an apartment whose lessors had been notified by her on November 1, 1963, that the knob of the cold water faucet on the bathroom basin was cracked and should be replaced. On November 30, 1963, plaintiff Rowland entered the apartment at Christian's invitation as a social guest and was injured while using the bathroom fixtures when the porcelain handle of one of the water faucets broke in his hand. The injury severed the tendons and medial nerve in Rowland's right hand. He incurred medical and hospital expenses, suffered loss of wages, and sustained damage to his clothing. Rowland later filed a complaint alleging that the bathroom fixtures were dangerous, that Christian was aware of the dangerous condition, and that his injuries were proximately caused by her negligence. Christian filed an answer containing a general denial except that she admitted telling the lessors the faucet was defective and should be replaced. She also alleged contributory negligence and assumption of the risk on the ground that Rowland had failed to use his eyesight and knew of the condition of the premises. Christian supported her motion for summary judgment with an affidavit stating that Rowland was a social guest who had used the bathroom on a prior occasion and that the handle broke while he was using the faucet. In opposition, Rowland filed an affidavit stating that immediately prior to the accident he told Christian he was going to use the bathroom facilities, that she had known for two weeks that the faucet handle was cracked, that she had warned the manager of the building of the condition but nothing was done to repair it, that she did not warn him of the condition, and that the handle broke when he turned off the faucet. The trial court granted summary judgment for Christian, and Rowland appealed.
View caseThe duty applies when the possessor knows or has reason to know that trespassers are present or likely to be present in the area of the operations. Once that knowledge exists, the possessor must conduct the activities with reasonable care to avoid creating new risks of harm.
Supporting sources
Active operations involve affirmative ongoing conduct such as running machinery or moving materials. Passive conditions are static features like unguarded pits or concealed drop-offs. The duty of reasonable care toward trespassers arises only for the former once their presence is known or foreseeable.
Supporting sources
No. When workers or the possessor have repeatedly observed trespassers in the specific area of the operations, that pattern supplies reason to know of their presence. The duty then requires precautions tailored to the known risk before continuing the activity.
Supporting sources
…safety has led to a retreat from this position, and an exception to the general rule limiting liability has been made as to active operations where an obligation to exercise reasonable care for the protection of the licensee has been imposed on the occupier of land. ( Oettinger v. Stewart , supra , 24 Cal.2d 133, 138-139…