9.1 Landowner and Occupier Liability
4 min read•july 23, 2024
Landowner liability varies based on the entrant's status. Invitees get the highest , licensees an intermediate level, and trespassers the lowest. Landowners must warn of dangers and sometimes make their property safe, depending on the visitor's category.
Exceptions exist for child trespassers and discovered trespassers. Some places now use a universal reasonable care standard instead of categories. This approach considers factors like harm and prevention burden when determining liability.
Landowner and Occupier Liability
Duties to property entrants
Top images from around the web for Duties to property entrants
Bringing tort law back | Who brings a torts book to the park… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Torts - Free of Charge Creative Commons Suspension file image View original
Is this image relevant?
Bringing tort law back | Who brings a torts book to the park… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Torts - Free of Charge Creative Commons Suspension file image View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
Top images from around the web for Duties to property entrants
Bringing tort law back | Who brings a torts book to the park… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Torts - Free of Charge Creative Commons Suspension file image View original
Is this image relevant?
Bringing tort law back | Who brings a torts book to the park… | Flickr View original
Is this image relevant?
Torts - Free of Charge Creative Commons Suspension file image View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 2
- Invitees
- Owed the highest duty of care by landowners
- Invited onto the property for business purposes (shopping at a store) or public interest (visiting a public park)
- Landowner must inspect the premises, warn of known dangers (wet floor signs), and make the property reasonably safe (fixing broken stairs)
- Licensees
- Owed an intermediate duty of care by landowners
- Enters the property with the landowner's permission for their own purposes (social guests attending a party)
- Landowner must warn of known dangers (informing guests of a loose handrail) but has no duty to inspect or make the property safe
- Trespassers
- Owed the lowest duty of care by landowners
- Enters the property without permission or legal right (jumping a fence to take a shortcut)
- Generally, landowner owes no duty except to refrain from willful or wanton injury (setting traps or intentionally harming trespassers)
Exceptions to landowner liability
-
- Applies to child trespassers
- Landowner may be liable if they maintain an artificial condition that attracts children and poses a risk of harm (unsecured swimming pool or construction equipment)
- Elements:
- Landowner knows or should know that children are likely to trespass (property is near a school or playground)
- Condition poses an unreasonable risk of harm to children (deep water or sharp objects)
- Children are unlikely to appreciate the risk due to their age (young children may not understand the danger of drowning)
- Burden of eliminating the danger is slight compared to the risk to children (installing a pool fence or locking up equipment)
- Landowner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or protect children
-
- Once a landowner discovers a 's presence, they must exercise reasonable care to avoid causing injury (warning a trespasser of a hidden well or unstable structure)
-
- If a landowner knows that trespassers frequently enter a particular area, they may have a duty to warn of known dangers in that area (posting signs near frequently used shortcuts)
Trend of universal reasonable care
- Some jurisdictions have abolished the traditional categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser
- Instead, they apply a general duty of reasonable care to all entrants, regardless of their status
- Factors considered in determining reasonable care:
- Foreseeability of harm (likelihood of an accident occurring)
- Severity of potential harm (degree of injury that could result)
- Burden of preventing harm (cost and effort required to mitigate the risk)
- Landowner's knowledge of the condition (actual or constructive notice of the danger)
- Entrant's reason for entering the property (purpose of the visit)
- This approach simplifies the law and focuses on the landowner's conduct rather than the entrant's status
Application of liability standards
- Business invitee slips on a wet floor in a store
- Landowner owes a duty to inspect, warn, and make the premises reasonably safe
- Liability depends on whether the landowner had actual or constructive notice of the condition (employee spilled water or customer complained) and failed to take reasonable steps to address it (placing a warning sign or mopping up the spill)
- Social guest trips on a loose step at a friend's house
- As a licensee, the landowner owes a duty to warn of known dangers but not to inspect or make the property safe
- Liability depends on whether the landowner knew of the loose step and failed to warn the guest
- Child trespasser is injured while playing on construction equipment
- Attractive nuisance doctrine may apply
- Liability depends on whether the elements of the doctrine are met, such as the landowner's knowledge of the risk (aware that children play in the area) and the burden of eliminating the danger (cost of fencing off the equipment)
- Hiker is injured by a fallen tree on a remote trail
- In a jurisdiction that applies the general duty of reasonable care, liability would depend on factors such as the foreseeability of harm (likelihood of trees falling), the severity of the potential harm (seriousness of injuries from falling trees), and the burden of preventing the harm (difficulty of inspecting and maintaining remote trails)
Key Terms to Review (19)
Assumption of Risk: Assumption of risk is a legal doctrine that asserts a person can be held responsible for the injuries they incur while voluntarily engaging in an activity that involves known risks. This concept is significant because it relates to how individuals may agree to take on certain dangers, potentially limiting the liability of others involved in those activities.
Attractive nuisance doctrine: The attractive nuisance doctrine is a legal principle that holds landowners liable for injuries to children who trespass on their property if the property contains a hazardous condition that is likely to attract children. This doctrine recognizes that children may not fully understand the dangers posed by certain attractive features, such as pools, treehouses, or abandoned machinery, and therefore imposes a duty on landowners to take reasonable steps to protect against such risks.
Breach of Duty: Breach of duty occurs when an individual fails to meet the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in similar circumstances, resulting in potential harm to others. This concept is crucial in understanding negligence, as it establishes whether a party has acted unreasonably or failed to uphold their responsibilities, which can lead to liability in various scenarios.
Causation: Causation refers to the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the first event is responsible for the occurrence of the second. In tort law, establishing causation is crucial as it links a defendant's conduct to the harm suffered by a plaintiff, determining whether liability exists based on the actions taken or omitted.
Commercial property: Commercial property refers to real estate that is used primarily for business purposes, such as office buildings, retail spaces, warehouses, and industrial facilities. This type of property plays a crucial role in the economy by providing spaces where businesses can operate, and it has unique legal considerations regarding liability and maintenance responsibilities for landowners and occupiers.
Comparative Negligence: Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used to assess the degree of fault or responsibility of each party involved in a tort claim, allowing for the apportionment of damages based on their respective levels of negligence. This concept helps determine how much compensation a plaintiff can recover if they are found partially at fault for their own injuries, thereby promoting fairness in liability assessments.
Constant Trespasser: A constant trespasser is an individual who repeatedly enters another person's property without permission, often leading to unique legal considerations regarding liability. This term highlights the ongoing nature of the trespass and its implications for landowners and occupiers, particularly concerning the duty of care owed to such individuals. Understanding the distinction between a constant trespasser and occasional trespassers is crucial for determining the appropriate legal standards that apply to landowner liability.
Dangerous Condition: A dangerous condition refers to a situation on a property that poses an unreasonable risk of harm to individuals who enter or use that property. This concept is vital in understanding landowner and occupier liability, as it influences the responsibilities and duties owed to different types of visitors, such as invitees, licensees, and trespassers. Recognizing whether a condition is deemed dangerous can determine if the landowner is liable for injuries that occur as a result of that condition.
Discovered Trespasser: A discovered trespasser is a person who enters or remains on someone else's property without permission and is known to the landowner or occupier. The key distinction here is that the property owner has actual knowledge of the trespasser's presence, which affects the legal duties owed to that individual compared to unknown trespassers. This status impacts liability, as landowners must take reasonable steps to protect discovered trespassers from harm once they are aware of their presence.
Duty of Care: Duty of care is a legal obligation that requires individuals to adhere to a standard of reasonable care while performing acts that could foreseeably harm others. This concept is fundamental in determining liability in various legal contexts, including negligence and tort law.
Foreseeability: Foreseeability is a legal concept that refers to the ability to predict or anticipate the potential consequences of one's actions or omissions. It plays a crucial role in determining liability in tort law, as it helps establish whether a defendant should have anticipated the harm that resulted from their conduct.
Landlord-Tenant Act: The Landlord-Tenant Act refers to a set of laws that govern the relationship between landlords and tenants, outlining their rights and responsibilities. These laws aim to provide a legal framework for rental agreements, ensuring both parties understand their obligations, which contributes to the regulation of housing and the prevention of disputes over rental terms and conditions.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.: Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a landmark case in tort law that established key principles regarding foreseeability and proximate cause in negligence claims. The case involved a woman named Helen Palsgraf, who was injured when fireworks, dislodged by a train passenger’s fall, exploded at a train station. This case highlights the importance of determining whether a defendant's actions were the legal cause of a plaintiff's injuries, particularly focusing on whether the harm was foreseeable.
Premises Liability Act: The Premises Liability Act refers to the legal principles governing the responsibilities of property owners and occupiers to ensure safe conditions for individuals on their premises. This act establishes the duty of care that a landowner owes to various categories of visitors, which can vary based on whether the visitor is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser, connecting it to broader concepts of landowner and occupier liability.
Reasonable inspection: Reasonable inspection refers to the duty of landowners and occupiers to regularly check their premises for potential hazards that could harm visitors. This concept is central to ensuring that the property is safe for use, and it requires owners to take proactive steps to identify and mitigate risks, thereby establishing a standard of care owed to individuals on the property.
Reasonable person standard: The reasonable person standard is a legal standard used to determine if an individual's actions can be considered negligent by comparing them to what a typical, rational person would do in similar circumstances. This standard helps assess duty of care and is fundamental in various areas of tort law.
Residential property: Residential property refers to real estate that is designed primarily for people to live in, such as single-family homes, apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. This type of property is essential for understanding how laws apply to homeowners and tenants, particularly regarding their rights and responsibilities in relation to safety and liability.
Rowland v. Christian: Rowland v. Christian is a landmark case in California that redefined the duty of care owed by landowners to individuals on their property. This case established that landowners can be held liable for injuries occurring on their property due to hazardous conditions, even if the injured party was a trespasser, marking a significant shift in how courts view landowner liability.
Trespasser: A trespasser is an individual who enters or remains on someone else's property without permission or legal right. This term is crucial in determining the liability of landowners and occupiers regarding injuries sustained by individuals on their property. Understanding the status of a trespasser helps clarify the extent of duty owed by landowners and the defenses available to them in cases of injury.