## Facts

- A six-year-old child was injured on an unimproved portion (east 75 feet) of a Wilmington, California lot.
- The east 75 feet was used by Vaughn C. Golden to store building-salvage materials, equipment, and machinery; neighborhood children played on stored items, including a tubular frame trailer.
- Evidence was uncontradicted that Vaughn knew young children, including the plaintiff, repeatedly entered the lot and played on the trailer and other stored items.
- Vaughn had, at times, ordered children off the property, but they continued to return.
- Title to the parcel had been divided by deeds executed in October 1952: the east 75 feet was conveyed to Vaughn, and the west 50 feet (with an apartment house) was conveyed to Vaughn’s parents, Earl and Goldie Golden; the deeds were recorded shortly after the accident.
- Gertrude G. Golden (Vaughn’s former wife) had conveyed her interest to Vaughn under a property settlement and had no involvement in Vaughn’s business or the items stored on the east 75 feet.
- The minor, through a guardian ad litem, sued all defendants for negligence; the case was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was entered against all defendants.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported liability against Vaughn C. Golden for negligence based on a dangerous condition left accessible on land where he knew young children repeatedly trespassed to play.
2. Whether Gertrude G. Golden, Earl M. Golden, and Goldie A. Golden could be held liable for the child’s injuries when they lacked possession or control of the accident location and did not control or use the equipment stored there.

## Decision

- The judgment against Vaughn C. Golden was affirmed.
- The judgments against Gertrude G. Golden, Earl M. Golden, and Goldie A. Golden were reversed.
- As to Vaughn, the court held there was substantial evidence that he failed to use reasonable care to protect children from an unreasonable risk of harm created by accessible equipment he kept on the lot, given his knowledge of their repeated presence.
- As to the other defendants, the court held they were not liable because they did not possess or control the unimproved portion where the injury occurred and had no involvement with the stored equipment that allegedly caused the harm.

## Legal Principles

- A land possessor who knows that young children frequently trespass and play on conditions or instrumentalities on the premises must take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable injury from unreasonable risks, notwithstanding the children’s trespasser status.
- Repeated warnings or sporadic efforts to send children away may be insufficient if the possessor knows children continue to enter and a hazardous condition remains accessible.
- Premises-liability responsibility for a dangerous condition generally turns on possession and control at the time of injury and the practical ability to prevent or remedy the risk.
- Former owners or nonpossessory parties who have relinquished their interest and lack control over the location or instrumentality causing injury are not liable absent participation in creating or maintaining the hazard.

## Conclusion

The court upheld liability for the possessor who knowingly left an accessible hazard where small children repeatedly played, but relieved former or nonpossessory parties of liability because they lacked control over the accident area and the equipment at the time of injury.


Copfer v. Golden, 135 Cal. App. 2d 623, 288 P.2d 90 (Cal. Ct. App. 1955)