## Facts

- Rodney P. Wrinkle saw several cows loose near a highway bordering Gene and Charlene Norman’s property, with some cattle moving toward the road.
- Wrinkle attempted to prevent harm by herding the cattle, first using a lawn tractor and then on foot, and moved the cows through an open gate into the Normans’ yard toward a pen.
- In the yard, a clothesline wire was attached to a pole in a manner Wrinkle did not observe when he entered; portions of the wire may have extended to the ground.
- A calf became entangled in the clothesline wire and began choking; Wrinkle tried to free the calf by flipping the line off its neck.
- When the calf broke free and ran, the clothesline caught Wrinkle from behind, pulling his feet out from under him and causing him to fall onto a concrete pad.
- Wrinkle suffered severe injuries, including a broken back, and incurred substantial medical expenses.

## Issues

1. What duty of care do Kansas landowners owe to a person who enters land under a privilege of private necessity to prevent serious harm to persons or property?
2. Must a privileged entrant be treated as a trespasser for duty purposes, or is the landowner required to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances?

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and the district court.
- The court held the lower courts applied an incorrect duty standard by treating Wrinkle as a trespasser.
- The court remanded for further proceedings with arguments and analysis based on the proper duty of care.

## Legal Principles

- In Kansas, the duty of care owed to licensees and invitees is the same: reasonable care under all the circumstances.
- Kansas recognizes a privilege of private necessity, permitting entry or remaining on another’s land when it is, or reasonably appears to be, necessary to prevent serious harm to people or property, subject to conditions.
- A landowner’s duty to a person entering under an exercised privilege is the same as the duty owed to licensees and invitees: reasonable care under all the circumstances.
- When a court applies the wrong duty-of-care standard in a negligence case, summary judgment predicated on that standard cannot stand and the matter must be reconsidered under the correct duty.

## Conclusion

The Kansas Supreme Court held that a person who enters land under a private necessity privilege is not governed by the minimal trespasser-duty rule; instead, the landowner owes reasonable care under all the circumstances, requiring reversal of summary judgment and remand for renewed negligence analysis under the correct duty standard.


Wrinkle v. Norman, 301 P.3d 312 (Kan. 2013)