What standard of Care is owed by possessor of land to entrants on the land?

What standard of Care is owed by possessor of land to entrants on the land?

Last semester:Duty Breach asks whether the defendant exercised the appropriate standard of care under the circumstances

Generally the typical standard of care (S/C) is the reasonable person (RP) S/C: the care a RP would exercise under the same or similar circumstances to avoid reasonably foreseeable risks of harm to others.

While standard stays the same, the degree of care owed may change depending on the defendants knowledge, skill, physical ability, etc.

Sometimes, the S/C based on applicable statutory language (negligence per se)

DamagesActual causeProximate cause

Now:A defendant may owe a different S/C to the plaintiff depending on WHO the plaintiff is.

E.g., historically common carriers owed higher S/C to passengers.

The degree of care doesnt change as with the RP SC; rather the standard itself is higher.

Landowners/Occupiers May owe a different S/C to certain entrants on their property.

TrespasserInviteeLicenseeChild trespasser

TrespasserA trespasser is any person who has no legal right to be on anothers land.

A trespasser may be an adult or a child. Different rules may apply to child trespassers (see slides #10-11).

InviteeAn invitee is any person on the land:At least in part for the pecuniary (monetary) benefit of the landowner (a business invitee); OROn premises held open to the public generally (a public invitee)

Examples:You are a business invitee when you shop in a merchants store.You are a public invitee when you are a visitor at a park.

Licensee A licensee is someone with permission to be on the landowners land, but for a limited purpose.

Example:The cable repairman is a licensee; he has the right to be on your property to fix your cable, but he becomes a trespasser if you find him snooping around your closet.

Social guests.

S/C owed to TrespassersLandowners/occupiers owe a duty to avoid intentional, willful or wanton injury with respect to hidden dangers on the property.

However, once the landowner/occupier knows or has reason to know of imminent danger to the trespasser, the landowner owes a trespasser the RP S/C.

May owe a trespasser the RP S/C if the trespasser is a known trespasser (e.g., landowner knows trespasser cuts through landowners yard everyday).

S/C owed to LicenseesThe care owed by landowners/occupiers to licensees is the same care as that owed by them to trespassers.

S/C owed to Child TrespassersEven though child trespasser is a trespasser, landowner/occupier may owe a child trespasser the RP S/C if there is an attractive nuisance on the landowners property.

Attractive Nuisance DoctrineLandowner/occupier (here, possessor) subject to liability to child trespasser caused by artificial conditions on property if:

The place where condition exists is one upon which possessor knows or has reason to know children are likely to trespass; AND

The condition is one of which possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury; AND

The child, because of his youth does not realize the risk involved in intermeddling with the condition; AND

The utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared to the risk; AND

Possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect the child.

Attractive Nuisance DoctrineIf an attractive nuisance exists on the property, the landowner/occupier owes a child trespasser the RP S/C.

Attractive nuisance doctrine applies to children of grade-school age or younger; rarely teenagers.

The doctrine may also apply to natural conditions on the land (e.g., a frozen pond) as opposed to artificial ones (e.g., a swimming pool).

Open and Obvious DangersLandowner/occupier will not be liable for plaintiffs (usually an invitee or licensee) injuries if they are a result of an open and obvious danger.

Generally, landowner has a duty to exercise the RP S/C to lawful entrants to avoid reasonably foreseeable harm.

Yet landowners duty does not extend to dangers that would be obvious to persons of average intelligence (because its not reasonable foreseeable that an entrant exercising reasonable care for his own safety would suffer injury from a blatant hazard).

Firefighters RuleWhat care (if any) is owed by landowner to firefighter when firefighter is injured fighting a fire on landowners property?

Generally speaking, if the fire was negligently caused (as opposed to intentionally caused) by landowner, firefighter cannot recover from landowner for any injuries suffered while fighting the fire.

Some jurisdictions have limited or abolished this rule.

Adopting the RP S/CSome courts have determined that the entrant status rules have created confusion. Thus, they have adopted a RP S/C for all non-trespassing entrants.

By 2008, about half the states had either included social guests in invitee category, or had completely or partly abolished the invitee/licensee categories, so that all non-trespassing entrants are entitled to the RP S/C.

Recreational Users StatutesStatutes which immunize landowners from liability for injuries suffered by any non-paying recreational users utilizing landowners property.

Thus, no liability (or limited liability) for landowners/occupiers for injuries suffered by non-paying entrants using the property for hiking, fishing, hunting, camping, sightseeing, etc.