KnowMo Laws shieldKnowMo LawsShow-Me State Laws
Injuries & Lawsuits
RSMo 537.351effective 28 Aug 2012

Trespassers, no duty of care by owners, exception

Random law
In plain English

A person who owns or controls land does not have to keep it safe for trespassers. The owner just cannot hurt a trespasser on purpose or in a reckless way. There are three exceptions where an owner could be held responsible for a trespasser getting hurt or killed: (1) if a child gets hurt by a man-made dangerous thing on the land and the owner knew kids might come there and the danger was not obvious to a child; (2) if trespassers regularly sneak onto a specific part of the land and get hurt by a hidden man-made danger the owner knew about but did not warn about; or (3) if the owner knew a trespasser was on the land and was careless during active work being done on the land.

Word-for-word law

537.351. s, no by owners, for or death, when. — 1. Except as provided in 2 of this section, a , including an owner, , or other occupant, or an of such owner, lessee, or other occupant, owes no duty of care to a trespasser except to refrain from harming the trespasser by an intentional, , or . A possessor of real property may use force to repel a criminal trespasser as provided by section 563.074.

2. A possessor of real property may be subject to liability for physical injury or death to a trespasser in the following situations:

(1) If the trespasser is a child who is harmed by a dangerous on the land; and

(a) The knew or should have known that children were likely to at the location of the condition;

(b) The condition is one which the possessor knew or reasonably should have known involved an unreasonable risk of death or to such children;

(c) The injured child because of the child's youth did not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in the with the condition or in coming within the area made dangerous by the condition;

(d) The to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the of eliminating the danger were slight as compared with the risk to the child involved; and

(e) The possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the injured child; or

(2) The possessor knew or should have known that trespassers consistently intrude upon a limited area of the possessor's land where the trespasser was harmed, the harm resulted from a dangerous artificial condition on the land; and

(a) The possessor created or maintained the artificial condition that caused the injury;

(b) The possessor knew that the condition was likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to trespassers;

(c) The possessor knew or should have known that the condition was of such a nature that trespassers would not discover it; and

(d) The possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to warn trespassers of the condition and the risk involved; or

(3) If the possessor knew of the trespasser's presence on the land and failed to exercise as to active operations carried out on the land.

3. This section does not create or increase the liability of any possessor of real property and does not affect any from or defenses to liability established under state law or available under to which a possessor of real property may be entitled under circumstances not covered by this section.

Tap any gold-underlined word to see what it means.

Red section numbers link to that law.

Source & history notes

(L. 2012 S.B. 628)

View official source

Related Missouri laws

See all Injuries & Lawsuits laws

Legal information, not legal advice. Always confirm with the official source at revisor.mo.gov.

RSMo 537.351: Trespassers, no duty of care by owners, exception | KnowMo Laws