Landowner Duties

Exceptions to the Status of a Trespasser

(A) Foreseeable/frequent trespassers --> Owe a duty of RC to trespasser when landowner knows trespassers frequently use land or it is foreseeable. (B) Discovered Peril --> Owe a duty of RC to trespasser discovered in a dangerous situation, BUT no duty to discover exists.

Analyzing Status and Making Arguments

(A) One can switch between the categories -Ex.) door-to-door salesperson is a licensee, but if you've made an appointment he is an invitee, but if there is a no solicitation sign then he is a trespasser. (B) If you are with someone else they take on your status -Ex.) You are staying at a hotel as an invitee, but your guests are licensees to you, but invitees to the hotel. (C) Can Argue --> (1) Open & Obvious danger [no duty of care owed] If this doesn't work --> (2) can argue that P was a licensee where there is NO duty to warn, just to refrain from willful/wanton misconduct, if that doesn't work --> (3) Assumption of the Risk, argue last, D bears burden. (D) Healthcare Provider's Duty --> applied to negligence claims Cost/Benefit analysis. (E) Risk-Utility Analysis (Hand Formula) (F) Custom (G) Violation of Statute

Attractive Nuisance Doctrine

A doctrine that imposes liability on landowners whose land contains dangerous artificial conditions that attract child trespassers. Landowner will STILL be liable if child was attracted by one nuisance but harmed by another. Factors to Consider: (1) Knowledge of child (2) Attractive condition (3) Knowledge of Conduct (4) Risk of Harm to Child (Even of a smaller harm) (5) No age limit--> but is determined based on what a child at that age would understand; usually less than 13 years old; The older you are, the less likely you are to recover. (6) Hand Formula --> D will argue that it's a burden to protect, but P's will argue that it is easy/cheap to protect. (7) Applies to artificial conditions (pools) not natural conditions (made by nature). (8) Owe a higher duty of RC --> especially if you know children are present. -Landowners MUST MAKE attempt to protect (e.g. fences, notices, warnings, parents, etc.)

Guest Statutes

A law that prohibits a nonpaying passenger in a noncommercial vehicle from bringing a damages action against the host-driver for ordinary negligence. Many states have enacted laws that limit the duty of care a host driver owes a passenger --> Under these laws, plaintiff, as a guest, can only recover for damages if D's actions are willful/wanton. -If you're negligent --> can't sue unless the D was willful or wanton.

Carriers (Common Carriers) and Host Drivers

A person or business that transports goods or passengers for a fee and is responsible for losses that occur during transport. A common carrier is also called a "public carrier." If passenger has paid you, then you OWE a guarantee of care (the highest degree of care) MUST EXERCISE *more* than ordinary care for passenger's protection, including foreseeing and guarding against danger. Note: Some courts have rejected a higher standard of care in favor of reasonable care under all circumstances rule. Ex.) Buses, motels, hotels, etc.

Open & Obvious Dangers

Argument can be made w/respect to trespassers but likely wont bar the claim anymore. Obvious standard --> Landowner owes NO DUTY OF CARE. "Obvious" --> Both the condition and the risk are apparent to and would be recognized by a reasonable man, in the position of a visitor, exercising ordinary perception, intelligence, and judgement.

Landowner's Duties to Trespassers, Licensees, Invitees, and children

General things to remember: (1) Scope --> may have one status when you enter a property, but this is subject to change. (2) Many of these labels are going away in favor of a comparative negligence scheme. (3) If you do not know someone is coming onto your property --> they are a trespasser.

Child Trespassers

Landowners owe duty of RC to child trespassers when trespass IS FORESEEABLE. Landowner knows or has reason to know of danger --> then there is a reason to think the child is unable to protect himself from danger, and child is under 13.

Landowner Duties

Limiting/expanding the duties according to class or status of the parties

Duties Owed to Trespassers.

NO DUTY OF CARE EXCEPT to refrain from willful/wanton misconduct. Once you know a trespasser is on your property --> Owe a duty of care No duty owed UNLESS you discover the trespasser, know of them, or involves children. Modern Trend --> Not to use the categories of trespassers; it will be examined according to the specific circumstances occurring. -You should owe a general duty of care under the circumstances

Trespasser

One who intentionally intrudes upon the property of another without consent or privilege to do so. A person who has no legal right to be on another's land and enters the land w/out the express or implied consent of the landowner --> person who's entrance upon the land was unconsented/unprivileged. Doesn't matter if you intended to trespass or not. NO DUTY OF CARE EXCEPT to refrain from willful/wanton misconduct. Once you know a trespasser is on your property --> Owe a duty of care

Invitee

One who is invited, expressly or implicitly, to enter the property of another for their mutual benefit. Duty = RC owed.

Public Invitee

One who is on premises held open for the general public.

Business Invitee

One who is on the premises at least in part for the BENEFIT of the landowner or occupier.

Licensee

One who is permitted to enter the property of another for one's own purposes. Someone who is one the land w/permission, but with a "limited license" to be on the premises --> not present for the benefit of the landowner (ex. Social guests) Friends and family, ppl that come over, but NO BENEFIT is conferred on you. Duty owed = low --> to refrain from willful or wanton misconduct.

Firefighter's Rule

Rule that limits a private landowner's duty of care to a firefighter or police officer who enters the property in the exercise of his duties to the duty of care owed to a licensee. Private/Professional rescuers are LICENSEES --> NO DUTY OF CARE but to refrain form willful/wanton conduct. Professional rescuers injured in the line of duty may sue the negligent party ONLY IF the negligent party was willful/wanton in creating a danger that necessitated professional rescuers or to the rescuer himself. There is a duty to WARN the rescuer if there are unusual or potential dangers.