Duty of Landowners and Occupiers

Question 1

Premises Liability

Answer 1

A person on your land is injured by your land

– when it comes to your land, sometimes you have to do something for someone else (duty)

** DUTY TO ACT (warn, prevent, fix)

Question 2

3 CL categories of visitors

Answer 2

Trespasser
Licensee
Invitee

Question 3

Trespasser

Answer 3

All Entrants w/o permission

CL - NO DUTY
Modern - can’t wilfully and wantonly harm trespassers

EXCEPTIONS: child trespassers and attractive nuisance; constant intrusion upon limited area gives a duty to warn

Question 4

Licensee

Answer 4

SOCIAL GUEST
- all entrants w/ permission UNTIL possessor has interest in the visit; this visit implies an INTANGIBLE benefit

Duty to make safe or warn of dangers of which you are aware

Question 5

Invitee

Answer 5

BUSINESS GUEST
- possessor’s intention in offering the invitation + reason to believe the premises have been made safe for the visitor; this visit is expected to confer a TANGIBLE benefit

Duty to warn or make safe dangers of which you are aware AND which reasonable inspection would make aware

Question 6

Open and Obvious dangers

Answer 6

In some courts, no duty is owed for open and obvious dangers b/c the danger was apparent

(you should have known and b/c of that there was no duty to protect or warn you)

Question 7

2d RSTMNT §330

Answer 7

*Guest is expected to take the premises as the possessor himself uses them, and does not expect and is not entitled to expect that they will be prepared for his reception or that precautions will be taken for his safety, in any manner in which the possessor doe not prepare or take precautions for his own safety or that of the members of his family

** invitee status to a person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.

Question 8

Carter v. Kinney

Answer 8

visitor was a licensee b/c intangible benefit, not open to the public (sign up sheet) and possibly no additional duty because the ice was an open and obvious danger

Question 9

Heins

Answer 9

Got rid of the 3 CL categories and est. a reasonable person standard for all LAWFUL visitors
– RSTMNT 3rd has adopted this model

Factors used to analyze reasonable care

1) foreseeability or possibility of harm
2) purpose of the entrant’s visit
3) the time, manner and circumstances of the visit
4) the use the premises are put or expected to be put
5) the reasonableness of the inspection, repair or warning
6) the opportunity and ease of repair
7) the burden on occupier or community in terms of inconvenience or cost in providing adequate protection

Question 10

Posecai

Answer 10

Duty to protect others from criminal activities of third persons on their land is based on reasonable foreseeability of the owner of the business/land – easier to sue the business than the criminal (deep pockets)

4 tests: (diff by juris)
1) Specific Harm test
Restrictive; land owner only owes a duty to protect patrons from violent acts of third parties when he is aware of specific, imminent harm about to befall them
2) Prior similar incidents test
Foreseeability is est. by evidence of previous crimes on or near the premises – consider nature and extent of the previous crimes as well as recency, frequency and similarity to crime in question
3) Totality of the Circumstances test (MOST WIDELY USED)
takes into account additional relevant factual factors and circumstances that bear on foreseeability

4) Balancing test ** The one chosen by this case **
Similar to Hand Rule; balances foreseeability of harm against the burden of imposing a duty to protect against criminal acts of third persons
– policy arg. might cause businesses to have to deal with lots of lawsuits and then might run them out of business