Court Upholds Century-Old Trespasser Liability Standard
The Vermont Supreme Court has unanimously ruled in favor of Green Mountain Power, finding the utility not liable for severe burns suffered by a 12-year-old boy who entered an electrical substation in Springfield in May 2013. The decision reinforces Vermont’s longstanding legal standard that property owners owe no general duty of care to trespassers.
What Happened
Ian Treadway was 12 years old when he and two friends were playing on footpaths near Green Mountain Power’s South Street substation. The facility was enclosed by a chain-link fence topped with barbed wire, secured with a padlocked gate, and posted with “Danger” and “High Voltage Keep Out” warning signs.
Both parties agreed that Treadway entered through a section of the gate despite the lock. Once inside, he either made contact with electrified equipment or electricity arced to him. His clothes caught fire, and he sustained second- and third-degree burns on his face and upper body. Treadway was placed in a medically induced coma during part of his recovery and later experienced difficulty fully extending one arm.
His family filed a negligence lawsuit against Green Mountain Power, arguing the utility bore responsibility for his injuries. Windsor County Superior Court Judge H. Dickson Corbett had previously dismissed the case in the utility’s favor, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision following oral arguments held in March.
The Court’s Reasoning
Justice Harold Eaton Jr., who authored the unanimous opinion, rejected the plaintiffs’ request that the court adopt a different liability standard when the trespasser is a child. The court declined to carve out an exception to Vermont’s established no-duty-to-trespassers doctrine.
“For over a century, our no-duty-to-trespassers law has harbored certainty, stability, and predictability within Vermont’s landowner liability law,” Eaton wrote. The court added that it would “decline to overrule our existing cases” on the matter.
The ruling means that under Vermont law, property owners — including utility companies — generally do not face liability when a trespasser is injured on their land, even when the trespasser is a minor.
By the Numbers
- May 2013: Date of the substation incident
- 12 years old: Treadway’s age at the time
- Over 100 years: Duration of Vermont’s no-duty-to-trespassers legal precedent
- Unanimous: The Supreme Court vote upholding the lower court’s dismissal
Zoom Out
The Vermont ruling reflects a broader legal debate that has played out across the country regarding how much responsibility landowners bear when children enter their property without permission. Some states apply a separate standard — often called the “attractive nuisance” doctrine — which holds landowners to a higher duty of care when a feature of the property is likely to attract children and poses an unreasonable risk of harm. Vermont’s Supreme Court declined to move in that direction, choosing instead to preserve the predictability of its existing framework.
Utility substations present particular dangers due to high-voltage equipment, and companies across the country routinely fence and post them with warnings. The question of whether those precautions are sufficient to shield a utility from liability when a child is injured has produced varying outcomes in different jurisdictions depending on state law.
What’s Next
With the Vermont Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, the legal proceedings in this case appear to have reached their conclusion at the state level. The decision sets a clear precedent that Vermont courts will not apply a separate trespasser liability standard for minors absent legislative action to change the underlying law.
Whether the ruling prompts calls in the Vermont legislature to revisit the state’s landowner liability framework remains to be seen. For now, Green Mountain Power and other Vermont property owners retain the protection of a doctrine that has governed such disputes for more than a century.