Torts Learning Questions - Set 4 Flashcards
Which of the following persons is considered a licensee of the landowner?
A
A member of the public visiting a free museum.
B
A health inspector determining whether to renew the landowner’s food service license.
C
A friend of the landowner invited in after giving the landowner a ride home.
D
A trespasser who the landowner knows regularly crosses over a section of the landowner’s land.
C
The friend of the landowner is a social guest and therefore a licensee. Under traditional landowner liability rules, a licensee is one who enters on the land with the landowner’s permission, express or implied, for her own purpose or business rather than for the landowner’s benefit. Even though a host may also derive some benefit from the presence of a social guest, including receiving the performance of minor services by the guest, this does not make the guest an invitee.
A trespasser who the landowner knows regularly crosses over a section of the landowner’s land is an anticipated trespasser and not a licensee. The duty owed to discovered and anticipated trespassers is not as high as the duty owed to licensees.
A health inspector determining whether to renew the landowner’s license is not a licensee. Persons who enter the premises for a purpose connected with the landowner’s business are invitees and are owed a higher duty.
Similarly, a member of the public visiting a free museum is an invitee. Invitees include those who enter the premises for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.
Which of the following persons is considered to be an invitee of the landowner?
A
A hiker hiking on the landowner’s open land with permission.
B
A firefighter fighting a fire on the landowner’s property.
C
A child accompanying a customer of the landowner.
D
A customer of the landowner who goes through a door marked “employees only”.
C
A child accompanying a customer of the landowner is considered an invitee because she came onto the property for a purpose connected to the business. Under traditional landowner liability rules, a landowner owes an invitee a general duty to use reasonable and ordinary care in keeping the property reasonably safe for the benefit of the invitee. This general duty includes the duties owed to licensees (to warn of nonobvious, dangerous conditions known to the landowner and to use ordinary care in active operations on the property). A landowner also owes invitees a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe.
A customer of the landowner who goes through a door marked “employees only” is no longer an invitee. A person loses his status as an invitee if he exceeds the scope of the invitation—if he goes into a portion of the premises where his invitation cannot reasonably be said to extend.
A firefighter fighting a fire on the landowner’s property is not treated like an invitee. Under the “firefighter’s rule,” police officers and firefighters are generally treated like licensees, based on public policy or assumption of risk grounds. They cannot recover for a landowner’s failure to inspect or repair dangerous conditions that are an inherent risk of their law enforcement or firefighting activity.
A hiker on the landowner’s open land is not considered an invitee. If an owner or occupier of open land permits the public to use the land for recreational purposes without charging a fee, the landowner is not liable for injuries suffered by a recreational user unless the landowner willfully and maliciously failed to guard against or warn of a dangerous condition or activity.
Which of the following is correct regarding a landowner’s duty to an invitee under traditional landowner liability rules?
A
The landowner must repair dangerous conditions to satisfy his duty to invitees
B
The landowner does not owe an invitee a duty to make inspections
C
An invitee may lose that status if she exceeds the scope of her invitation
D
A firefighter engaged in fighting a fire on the landowner’s premises is an invitee
C
An invitee may lose that status if she exceeds the scope of her invitation . A person loses her status as an invitee if she exceeds the scope of the invitation, such as if she goes into a portion of the premises where her invitation cannot reasonably be said to extend.
A firefighter engaged in fighting a fire on the landowner’s premises is NOT an invitee. Under the “firefighter’s rule,” police officers and firefighters are generally treated like licensees rather than invitees, based on public policy or assumption of risk grounds. They cannot recover for a landowner’s failure to inspect or repair dangerous conditions that are an inherent risk of their law enforcement or firefighting activity.
A landowner DOES owe an invitee a duty to make inspections. The landowner owes an invitee a general duty to use reasonable and ordinary care in keeping the property reasonably safe for the benefit of the invitee. This general duty includes the duties owed to licensees (to warn of nonobvious dangers known to the landowner and to use ordinary care in active operations on the property), plus a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe. However, the duty to “make safe” does not require that the landowner must repair dangerous conditions to satisfy his duty to invitees. Depending on the nature of the danger, it is usually sufficient if a reasonable warning has been given.
Which of the following is true of the duty owed to a licensee by a landowner?
A
The landowner must repair known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware
B
The landowner owes no duty to protect the licensee from active operations on the land
C
The landowner owes a duty to warn of or make safe known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware
D
The landowner must inspect for dangerous conditions on the land
C
A landowner owes a duty to a licensee to warn of or make safe known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware. A licensee is one who enters on land with the landowner’s permission, express or implied, for her own purpose or business, rather than for the landowner’s benefit. The owner has a duty to warn of or make safe a dangerous condition known to the owner that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee and that the licensee is unlikely to discover.
As to a licensee, the landowner does NOT need to inspect for dangerous conditions on the land. Similarly, the landowner need NOT repair known dangerous conditions on the land of which the licensee is not aware; a warning generally will suffice.
The landowner DOES have a duty to protect the licensee from active operations on the land. The owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the conduct of active operations for the protection of a licensee whom he knows to be on the property.
A homeowner born on the fourth of July celebrated his birthday in his backyard with an assortment of fireworks and skyrockets, despite a severe drought and watering ban that left the grass extremely dry. One of the fireworks landed in a pile of dry grass clippings behind his garage, but the homeowner neglected to check whether it was extinguished. The grass clippings ignited, and the fire eventually spread to the rear wall of the garage. By the time the homeowner discovered the fire and called the fire department, the flames were reaching as high as the vacant apartment on the second floor of the garage. The first firefighter to arrive rushed with a hose to the back of the garage. As he went up the outside stairs leading to the back door of the apartment, one of the steps broke, causing him to fall to the ground and break his leg. Unbeknownst to the homeowner, the wood on the underside of the step had rotted away.
In a suit by the firefighter against the homeowner, will the firefighter likely prevail?
A Yes, because the homeowner was negligent in allowing the fire to start.
B Yes, because it was foreseeable that the homeowner’s shooting off the fireworks would necessitate the assistance of the fire department.
C No, unless the jury determines that the homeowner could have discovered the condition of the step with a reasonable inspection.
D No, because a firefighter cannot recover for negligent conduct of another that causes him to be injured from risks that are inherent to his duties.
D
The homeowner is not liable because the “firefighter’s rule,” based on assumption of risk or public policy grounds, generally will preclude a firefighter from recovering for injuries occurring on duty from risks inherent to his job, even if caused by another’s negligence. One engaged in the activity of firefighting is deemed to know of the risks inherent in that activity, including the fact that a landowner may have failed to inspect or repair dangerous conditions on the land. (D) is therefore correct. (A) is incorrect because a common cause of fires is negligence by the property owner; that does not affect application of the rule. Thus, even if the homeowner acted negligently in allowing the fire to start, he is not liable. (B) is incorrect because the fact that it was foreseeable that the homeowner’s conduct would start a fire establishes only that he was negligent in setting off the fireworks. Despite his negligence, the homeowner has a complete defense because of the “firefighter’s rule.” (C) is incorrect because the firefighter would not be treated as an invitee under these circumstances. In many jurisdictions, a landowner such as the homeowner owes a duty to invitees not only to warn of nonobvious dangerous conditions known to him but also to make reasonable inspections to discover and rectify dangerous conditions. However, under the “firefighter’s rule,” firefighters and police officers are generally treated under the same standard as licensees because they are likely to enter the property at unforeseeable times and under emergency circumstances. As such, they cannot hold the landowner liable for failing to make reasonable inspections to discover a dangerous condition.
A boy was playing softball in a neighborhood park when a ball was hit over the fence and into a neighbor’s yard. The boy knocked on the neighbor’s door and obtained permission from her to retrieve the ball from her yard. As he bent to retrieve the ball in some bushes, the boy brushed against an exposed electric wire that was partially hidden by the bushes and received a severe electric shock and burns. The neighbor had failed to maintain the bushes, allowing them to become overgrown, and was not aware of the exposed wire.
If the boy sues the neighbor in a jurisdiction that applies the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, what is the likely result?
A The neighbor is liable because the boy entered with her permission.
B The neighbor is liable because she failed to repair a dangerous condition on her property.
C The neighbor is liable because she failed to reasonably inspect the property, which would have made her aware of the dangerous condition of the wire.
D The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire.
D
The neighbor is not liable because she did not know of the condition of the wire and the boy was a licensee. In jurisdictions that distinguish between invitees and licensees, a licensee is a person who enters land with the owner’s permission, for his own purpose or business rather than for the owner’s benefit. The owner or occupier of land owes the licensee a duty to warn of or make safe a dangerous condition known to the owner or occupier that creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee and that the licensee is unlikely to discover. However, the owner or occupier has no duty to a licensee to inspect for defects nor to repair known defects. The boy was a licensee because he entered the neighbor’s land with her permission for his own purpose (retrieving the ball) rather than for any benefit of the neighbor’s. The exposed electric wire created an unreasonable risk of death or serious injury to the boy as he reached into the bushes. Because the neighbor did not know of the presence and condition of the wire, she had no knowledge of any risk of harm to the boy. Thus, no duty to warn the boy of the wire was triggered. (A) is incorrect because the mere fact that the neighbor gave the boy permission to enter her land will not subject her to liability for his injuries incurred thereon. The neighbor is not strictly liable for injuries to a licensee, but only for any injuries caused by a breach of her duty to warn of dangerous conditions known to her and that the licensee is unlikely to discover. (A) would impose liability even where the neighbor had no knowledge of the condition of the wire. (B) is incorrect because, as noted above, an owner of land does not owe a duty to a licensee to repair defects or dangerous conditions. Likewise, (C) is incorrect because the owner of land is not under a duty to a licensee to make an inspection to discover defects or dangerous conditions.
After enjoying a wonderful meal in a restaurant, a diner went into the kitchen through a door marked “employees only” to personally compliment the chef. However, before he could get the attention of the chef, he slipped on a puddle of bright yellow grease that had congealed on the floor by the stove. He fell, hitting his head and sustaining a severe head injury.
If the diner sues the restaurant for damages in a jurisdiction following the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, is he likely to recover?
A Yes, because the restaurant is a place of public accommodation and breached its duty of care owed to its patrons.
B Yes, because a restaurant employee could have discovered the dangerous condition of the floor by making reasonable inspections.
C No, because patrons were not allowed in the kitchen.
D No, because the puddle of grease was visible on the floor.
C
The diner is not likely to recover because the restaurant did not permit patrons in the kitchen. In jurisdictions following the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land, the duty owed by an owner or occupier of land to those entering the land depends on whether the entrant is characterized as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. Here, the diner was an invitee of the restaurant while he was dining at the restaurant. However, a person loses his status as an invitee if he exceeds the scope of the invitation—if he goes into a portion of the premises where his invitation cannot reasonably be said to extend. Here, the diner lost the status of an invitee when he entered the kitchen; he became, at best, a licensee, perhaps even a trespasser, because patrons were not permitted in the kitchen. While a landowner owes no duty to an undiscovered trespasser, he owes a discovered trespasser the duty to warn of or make safe artificial conditions known to the landowner that involve a risk of death or serious bodily harm and that the trespasser is unlikely to discover. For a licensee, the duty extends to all dangerous conditions that create an unreasonable risk of any harm to the licensee. Had the diner been an invitee, he could have argued that under the duty owed to invitees to make reasonable inspections, a puddle of grease that had time to congeal should have been discovered and cleaned up, or at least been the subject of a warning. Here, however, there are no facts to suggest that anyone in the kitchen knew of the diner’s presence or the puddle of grease, even though it had congealed; hence, the facts do not establish a breach of the duty to warn discovered trespassers or licensees of dangerous conditions. (A) is incorrect. While places of public accommodation have an affirmative duty to use reasonable care to aid or assist their patrons, that duty rule does not alter the duty rules pertaining to the condition of the land, which are based on the status of the person on the premises (as discussed above). (B) is incorrect because the failure to exercise reasonable care to discover a dangerous condition breaches a duty owed only to invitees, as discussed above. However, the diner was no longer an invitee when he entered the kitchen area. He was at most a licensee, for whom the duty to make reasonable inspections does not apply. (D) is incorrect. While a duty to warn does not exist where the dangerous condition is so obvious that the invitee should reasonably have been aware of it, just the fact that the grease was visible on the floor does not establish this. “Obviousness” is determined by all of the surrounding circumstances; e.g., one whose attention may have been directed elsewhere may recover even though the condition was visible. In any case, even if the puddle were not visible, the diner would not be able to recover because he did not have invitee status when he entered the kitchen.
A shopper at a grocery store slipped and fell when he stepped in some water that had seeped out from a malfunctioning freezer case. The fall caused the shopper to break an ankle, so he filed suit against the store in a jurisdiction applying the traditional rules for landowners and possessors of land. At trial, the shopper presented evidence of the above facts, and testified that the floor around the water appeared dirty.
To survive a motion for summary judgment by the store, what additional evidence must the shopper present?
A No additional evidence.
B He was planning to make a purchase at the store.
C The store employees knew that the freezer case was leaking.
D His attention was diverted by store displays so that he did not notice the water on the floor.
A
The shopper’s lawsuit will survive a motion for summary judgment by the store without any additional evidence. Under the facts here, the shopper was an invitee as to the store because he came onto the premises for a purpose connected with the store’s business. The store therefore owed him the duty to warn of nonobvious dangerous conditions and to make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions and make them safe. The shopper’s testimony that the floor around the water appeared dirty suggests that the floor had not been swept or mopped for some time. This is enough evidence to allow the jury to decide whether the store employees failed to reasonably inspect or make safe an area in which its invitees would walk, which would breach its duty to the shopper. (B) is incorrect because the shopper need not show that he planned to make a purchase to have the status of an invitee. Even if he came just to return an item or browse the aisles and compare prices, he qualifies as an invitee. (C) is incorrect because the store could be liable even if its employees did not know that water was leaking onto the floor. Because the shopper was an invitee, the store owed a duty to make reasonable inspections to discover unsafe conditions. (D) is incorrect because the shopper need not establish his due care here. Even if the shopper was not distracted by displays and should have seen the water had he been watching where he was walking, he can still recover some damages under pure comparative negligence, which allows recovery against a negligent defendant no matter how great plaintiff’s negligence is. It will be an issue for the jury to determine whether and to what extent the shopper was at fault.
