Foss v. Kincade

I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the court’s determination that the Kin-cades had no duty to young David Foss because “it was simply not reasonably foreseeable that David would try to climb on the bookcase.”

Other courts have noted “the known ‘propensity’ of children to roam and climb and play.” Dunbar ex rel. Blair v. NMM Glens Falls Assocs. LLC, 263 A.D.2d 865, 698 N.Y.S.2d 746, 747 (N.Y.App.Div.1999) (citation omitted); see also Orr v. First Nat’l Stores, Inc., 280 A.2d 785, 789 (Me.1971) (observing that “young children have propensities to intermeddle and to indulge impulses to play…