OWNERS/OCCUPIERS OF LAND
Entrances Onto Land these three categories still exist in common law (including NY):
1. Tresspassers – owed least care
2. Licensees
3. Invitees – get the most protection
**When we talk about limited duties, we talk about the duty owed by the owner/occupier of the land. The duty may well fall to the occupier of the land, even though the occupier is not the owner of the land. When we talk about corporations for instance, the occupier is not responsible for what happens in entrances to the land.
Trespassers
· Rest. Def.: a person who enters or remains upon another’s land without a privilege to do so.
· Quantum of care is lowest, because the person is not supposed to be there
Modern Rule for Trespassing:
Adult: landlord or occupant owes a duty of ordinary care. Which means it can be a sign, that says “no trespassing.” This duty of ordinary care means, the owner/occupant cannot do anything wanton or willful, and it may not require anything more than a warning.
Child: trespassing, a duty of reasonable care. Which means, you have to eliminate the danger, or in some other way protect children. This doesn’t make owner/occupier exposed to liability for every child that runs onto property, but it applies to children that trespass in the following situations:
· The trespassing is foreseeable (a piece of property is located next to a park, it will be much more foreseeable that children will find their way onto that piece of property)
· Where the landowner/occupier knows or has reason to know of the danger and that it poses an unreasonable risk or harm to children
· Children, due to their age, are not going to discover the condition or realize the risk it poses. Or even if they can discover the risk, they can’t appreciate it due to their age (ie. Wells, pools)
· It is a duty of reasonable care and it is a risk utility where the burden of eliminating the danger is slight, compared to the risk to the child. This means that you can have a pool in the back yard, but it should be fenced. You have to balance it.
à always post lots of warnings, because it does not cost anything, won’t insulate someone from liability but since it doesn’t cost anything it doesn’t hurt to post
à there are certain qualities that attach to lands. There have been cases that courts have said that even in regards to children, when a hazard is so common and so obvious, even then the courts have been unwilling to provide the child trespasser protection-but the trend, this will provide protection.
Sheehan v. St Paul
Plaintiff: trespasser
Defendant: railroad
Facts: man walking on railroad tracks, got foot stuck and mutilated by oncoming train.
Court Ruling:
· Railroad’s position, had no constructive notice, the train operator was not on the lookout for him because it is not a place open to travel
· Court: the railroad company has the right to a free track in such places, that is not bound to any act or service in anticipation of trespassers thereon; and that the trespasser who ventures to enter upon at rack for any purpose of his own assumes all risks of the conditions which may be found there, including the operation of engines and cars
· If it occurred in a place where there was a crossing, they would
nter: and plaintiff will encounter the danger
** in some jurisdictions one of the three is enough (one of the first two) in others the owner/occupier must know and reason to know that plaintiff will encounter danger.
Barmore v. Elmore
Plaintiff: stabbed guest
Defendant: homeowner (father of son who stabbed the plaintiff)
Facts: plaintiff came to defendant’s house and defendant’s son stabbed the plaintiff
Issue: did the defendant owe a duty to the plaintiff as a homeowner (owner/occupier) to warn the plaintiff of the danger (his son’s condition) on the land.
Court: in favor of defendant
· The duty depends on whether the person was an invitee or a licensee
· Both belonged to fraternal organizations, the court took position that it was in furtherance of the fraternal organization, and the plaintiff was a licensee and not an invitee b/c he was there furthering his own business
· If the plaintiff was a licensee, then you’d have to warn of a hidden danger
· If the plaintiff was an invitee, then you’d be owing a much higher standard
· As a licensee, there is a duty only to warn, which is really something that is hidden or undisclosed
The defendant had no knowledge of the current condition since the last outbreak was 10 years ago. He was no longer considered violent by the parents
