## Facts

- In 1976, nine-year-old Douglas Merrill entered Central Maine Power Company’s property in South Berwick, Maine, to fish in the Salmon Falls River.
- CMP’s property included a fenced electrical substation.
- After catching an eel, Merrill climbed the substation fence and attempted to cook the eel by placing it on an energized wire.
- Merrill suffered an electric shock and severe burns.
- Merrill sued CMP for personal injuries, alleging, among other theories, liability under the attractive nuisance doctrine.
- In discovery, Merrill admitted he understood electricity was dangerous and could burn and hurt him, and he acknowledged his conduct was a “dumb idea.”

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner may be liable under Maine’s attractive nuisance doctrine where the injured child, despite his age, actually understood and appreciated the risk of contacting high-voltage electricity after climbing a protective fence.
2. Whether undisputed evidence of the child’s appreciation of the danger defeats the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339(c) element as a matter of law, warranting summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed summary judgment for CMP.
- The court held that Merrill could not satisfy Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339(c) because the undisputed record showed he discovered the condition and appreciated the risk of electricity and the fenced substation.
- Because failure of any § 339 element defeats the claim, CMP was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the attractive-nuisance theory.
- The court affirmed without reaching other grounds relied on by the trial court, including recreational-use immunity and any categorical rule about substations.

## Legal Principles

- Maine applies Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 for attractive nuisance; a plaintiff must establish each element to impose liability for harm to trespassing children caused by an artificial condition.
- Section 339(c) requires that, because of youth, the child does not discover the condition or does not realize the risk of intermeddling with it or entering the dangerous area.
- A child’s actual knowledge and appreciation of a known danger can defeat § 339(c) and bar attractive-nuisance liability, even if the child is young.
- Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; a plaintiff’s admissions may render a key element undisputed.

## Conclusion

The court held that attractive-nuisance liability was unavailable because the child’s own testimony established that he understood the danger of electricity and the protective purpose of the fence, so he could not meet Restatement § 339(c), and summary judgment for the landowner was affirmed.


Merrill v. Cent. Me. Power Co., 628 A.2d 1062 (Me. 1993)