II.B. Negligence SoC: Premises Liability Flashcards
What is the stricter standard of care for a premises?
Owners or possessors of property are subject to stricter standards of care with respect to entrants upon their property. Generally, must conduct activities on their property as a reasonable person who owns or occupies land (“RPOO”) would. However, other specifically applicable standards depend upon the nature of the entry, and the nature of the entrant.
What is a licensee and what is an invitee?
Licensees are those who enter onto the land of another with permission, for social purposes (not to conduct business).
Invitees are those who enter with permission to conduct business or because the premises are held open to the general public for a purpose.
Injured invitees / rescuer doctrine?
In general, there is NO DUTY TO ACT AFFIRMATIVELY to come to a person’s aid when they are injured unless (1) they created the peril or (2) duty under relationship (parent to child, common carrier to customer, innkeeper to guests, shopkeeper to customer, prison officer to prisoner)
However, if you voluntarily assume the duty and come to another’s rescue, you are obligated to act with a reasonable standard of care and not to give aid negligently.
Was the invitee scope exceeded?
However, land owners owe no duty to business invitees where invitees exceed the scope of their invitation, i.e. by entering an area marked “do not enter,” or “employees only.”
What are the three privary duties owed in respect of invitees and licensees?
(1) ACTIVITIES on the premises - always assume RPOO standard
(2) reasonably WARN of KNOWN concealed dangers? INVITEES AND LICENSEES = YES
(3) INSPECT for UNKNOWN concealed dangers with reasonable care? INVITEES = Yes
What are the three primary duties owed in respect of invitees and licensees?
(1) ACTIVITIES on the premises - always assume RPOO standard
(2) reasonably WARN of KNOWN concealed dangers? INVITEES AND LICENSEES = YES
(3) INSPECT for UNKNOWN concealed dangers with reasonable care? INVITEES = Yes
What are the duties owed to discovered vs. undiscovered trespassers?
NONE if undiscovered/unforeseeable
Known or foreseeable:
(1) ACTIITIES - RPOO standard
(2) KNOWN ARTIFICIAL (manmade) CONDITIONS, that are HIGHLY DANGEROUS (risk of death/GBH) = WARN or MAKE SAFE [NOT NATURAL]
Standard of care for premises - owed to children?
Under the “attractive artificial condition” doctrine, if they (1) know/should know children may trespass, (2) the dangerous (and attractive) artificial condition is there (prior flashcard), .i.e., a pool or trampoline [NOT NATURAL] (3) children wouldn’t understand risk because of youth and (4) risk to children substantially outweighed cost to elimination of danger = failed to exercise reasonable care
