05-05-2016, 12:49 AM
(05-04-2016, 08:52 PM)xxlt Wrote: I am not a lawyer, but there is such a thing as an "attractive nuisance." It sounds like based on that principal one could reasonably assume the caretaker of the cemetery, and by extension his employer, had some responsibility. They attracted kids to a dangerous environment and gave them alcohol while there. Heck, just on the last point the caretaker has responsibility. A bar that serves an ADULT who gets drunk and injures someone can be held accountable. You can certainly be held accountable for serving a minor. Plus, as was discussed earlier, the caretaker's negligence caused anguish to those who felt their loved ones graves were desecrated by the partying and the accident and the damage it caused. And, one could say the employer reasonably could have known and/or should have known about the employee's negligent (open gate) and criminal (serving minors) behavior and the employer is ultimately responsible to those with whom they contracted to provide cemetery plots to keep them reasonably secured (fence in tact and gate locked at nightfall). Really, not that tough to see where there is plenty of culpability to go around.
In order for liability to attach because of an "attractive nuisance" there usually has to be something inherently dangerous i.e. deep water, a tall structure or dangerous equipment that is easy to climb, an open pit, etc. I don't think there is anything inherently dangerous about a cemetery, so if it was just posted that the cemetery was closed at a certain time I don't think it would be required that the gates were locked. I know of lots of public areas that are posted as being closed that are not sealed shut by locked gates. It just is not that easy to hols a property owner was responsible for injury tyo a trespasser.
As for the caretaker I don't know how much proof the jury heard that he allowed parties in the cemetery, but again, if was not like he was allowing kids to do something dangerous like cliff diving or drag racing, so I don't know if he could be held liable just because he knew they might be there. And he was not the one who provided the alcohol. It could be that he had some liability, but there would have to be a lot more facts than I have heard so far.
