Michael Kelley Case Study

ISSUE
I. Is Michael Kelley liable for injuries a child trespasser, Aranda Hudson, sustained while skateboarding on a loading ramp at his vacant warehouse?
II. Is Michael Kelley immune from liability under the recreational use statute if he creates an urban farm and charges participants, residents of the neighborhood, for a plot?
SHORT ANSWER
I. No. Under Minnesota law five elements must be satisfied to hold a property owner liable for injuries sustained by a child trespasser. It is unlikely that all elements can be met.
II. No. To be afforded immunity under Minnesota recreational use statute, an owner cannot charge for the use of his land.
FACTS
Michael Kelley, our client, owns a vacant warehouse in Saint Paul. Kelley received a letter from
Croaker, 592 N.W.2d at 860. Analysis of this element amounts in a close call. The court has not been silent on this issue. In Chase, the defendant, home builder, failed to latch a door; and block passage to the unfinished second floor, the court held that the feasibility and ease of securing the house—all with no damage to property—was negligible compared to the risk. 58 N.W.2d at 567. Further, in Doren, the defendant maintained an ash pile with smoldering ashes beneath the surface, and knew children were likely to trespass near the enclosed area where ashes were piled. 60 N.W.2d at 366-67. The court held that maintaining the condition was slight, as the defendant could have stored the burning ashes in metal containers readily available on its premises. Id. at 367. These cases differ from Kelley as he tried to secure the property. Kelley installed a five-foot chain link fence, put no trespassing signs on all sides, and padlocked the gate. Also, the ramp cannot be repaired and must be replaced which will cost $11,400. This amount is not minor, and is probably unreasonable because Kelley plans to demolish the warehouse. However, Kelley could have placed cones or put a sign to caution of the hazard which would have amounted in little cost. Although, efforts were made to secure the property and the cost is high to replace the ramp, Kelley could have taken other
The land must be used for recreational purposes. Minn. Stat. §§ 604A.22-.23 (2016). Applying the canons of construction to the defined meaning of recreational purpose, “recreational purpose” includes, but is not limited to, hunting; trapping; fishing; swimming . . . . Minn. Stat. § 604A.21 subd. 5 (2016). Here, the participants will grow flowers or produce. Although the statute does not specifically define farming for recreational use, in looking at the plain meaning it states, “includes, but is not limited to.” Therefore, the definition is not an exhaustive list, nor does it exclude all other activities not listed. Further, in examining the legislative intent, the definition for recreational use has broadened over time. See Minn. Stat. § 87.02 subd. 2 (1961); Minn. Stat. § 604A.21 subd. 5 (2016). Moreover, the policy of the statute is to encourage and promote the use of private land for the benefit of recreational purposes. Minn. Stat. § 604A.20 (2016). From this policy, we can infer the statute wants to incentivize recreational use; therefore, based on examples provided in the statutory definition, the urban farm likely falls under recreational purpose. Thus, this element is likely satisfied.
The fourth element cannot be satisfied if Kelley charges for plots. Applying the canons of construction to the defined meaning of charge, “Charge" means any admission price asked or charged for services, recreational use, or other activity by a