## Facts

- Carl Buch, an eight-year-old boy who could not speak or understand English, entered Amory Manufacturing Company’s textile mill at his thirteen-year-old brother’s request to learn back-boy work.
- The older brother was employed as a back-boy but lacked authority to invite or instruct Buch on the company’s behalf; Buch nonetheless remained about a day and a half, openly assisting in the room.
- Evidence suggested a non-overseer individual who appeared to be directing boys told Buch to pick up bobbins and dispose of waste.
- The overseer in charge of hiring and supervising back-boys learned of Buch’s presence about two hours before the accident, recognized he was not an employee, and attempted to have him sent out through an operative who spoke Buch’s language.
- Buch testified he did not understand he was being ordered to leave.
- The mill machinery was properly constructed, maintained, and operated in the usual course of business.
- Buch’s hand was caught in gearing that back-boys were instructed to avoid; Buch received no instruction or warning.

## Issues

1. Whether a mill owner operating safe machinery in the ordinary course of business owes an affirmative duty to protect or remove an infant trespasser who is allegedly incapable of appreciating danger.
2. Whether liability in negligence can rest solely on the owner’s omission to effectually exclude or protect a trespassing child from obvious operational hazards.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Hampshire set aside the jury verdict for Buch and ordered judgment for the defendant.
- The court held Buch was a trespasser and the defendant was without fault in the condition or operation of the machinery.
- The only claimed negligence—failing to remove or protect Buch—was not the breach of a legal duty owed to a trespasser, even if the child was incapable of self-protection.

## Legal Principles

- Actionable negligence requires breach of a legal duty; absent a duty, nonfeasance alone is not actionable.
- A landowner’s duty to a trespasser is limited to refraining from intentional or negligent acts of personal violence; there is no general duty to warn or protect trespassers from dangers on the premises.
- A landowner operating dangerous machinery in the ordinary course of business has no legal obligation to actively intervene to protect an infant trespasser from injury caused by that operation when the owner is otherwise without fault.
- Moral obligations to assist or protect others in danger are not necessarily legal duties enforceable in tort.

## Conclusion

Because Buch was a trespasser and the mill’s machinery was lawfully and safely operated, the defendant owed no affirmative legal duty to protect or remove him from the ordinary risks of the workplace; the verdict for the plaintiff was therefore set aside and judgment entered for the defendant.


Buch v. Amory Mfg. Co., 69 N.H. 257, 44 A. 809 (1898)