Premises Liability
What is the Premises Liability?
A landowner's duty of care to persons on their property depends on the entrant's status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. Some jurisdictions have replaced this framework with a general duty of reasonable care.
Definition
Premises liability governs the duty a landowner or possessor of land owes to persons who are injured on the property. Under the traditional common law approach, the duty owed depends on the status of the entrant. Invitees (persons on the property for the landowner's benefit or for a purpose connected to the landowner's business) are owed the highest duty: the landowner must inspect for hidden dangers, warn of known hazards, and maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Licensees (social guests and others on the property with permission for their own purposes) are owed a duty to warn of known hidden dangers but not a duty to inspect. Trespassers are generally owed only the duty to refrain from willful or wanton conduct, except for known or anticipated trespassers who are owed a limited duty of care.
Many modern jurisdictions have moved away from the traditional categories. The landmark case Rowland v. Christian abolished the status-based distinctions in California and adopted a general duty of reasonable care owed to all entrants regardless of their status. Several other states have followed this approach, either through judicial decision or legislation. Even in jurisdictions that retain the categories, the trend has been toward expanding the protections afforded to licensees and trespassers.
Special rules apply in particular contexts. The attractive nuisance doctrine extends enhanced protection to trespassing children. The open and obvious danger doctrine may limit or eliminate the landowner's duty to warn of hazards that a reasonable person would immediately recognize. Landlords owe duties to tenants and their guests, and these duties have expanded significantly in modern law. The status of the entrant at the time of injury, not at the time of entry, determines the duty owed in most jurisdictions.
Key Elements
- 1The defendant owned or possessed the land where the injury occurred
- 2The plaintiff entered the land as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser (in traditional jurisdictions)
- 3The landowner failed to meet the duty of care owed to that category of entrant
- 4The dangerous condition was a cause of the plaintiff's injury
- 5In modern jurisdictions: the landowner failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances
Landmark Cases
Rowland v. Christian
69 Cal.2d 108 (1968)
Abolished the traditional categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser and adopted a general duty of reasonable care for all entrants.
Carter v. Kinney
896 S.W.2d 926 (Mo. 1995)
Retained the traditional status-based categories and applied the licensee standard to a Bible study guest, illustrating the continued vitality of the traditional approach.
Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
75 Ohio St.3d 312 (1996)
Applied the open and obvious danger doctrine to limit a landowner's duty to warn, holding no duty existed for hazards that are apparent to a reasonable person.
Heins v. Webster County
250 Neb. 149 (1996)
Abolished the invitee-licensee distinction while retaining a limited duty to trespassers, adopting a middle-ground approach.
Exam Tips
- Determine whether the jurisdiction uses the traditional categories or the general duty approach — this is the first fork in the analysis.
- If using traditional categories, carefully classify the plaintiff's status. The difference between invitee and licensee can be outcome-determinative.
- Address the open and obvious danger doctrine — it can negate the duty to warn even if the landowner knew about the hazard.
- Do not forget the attractive nuisance doctrine if a trespassing child is injured.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Misclassifying the plaintiff's status — social guests are licensees, not invitees, in most jurisdictions using the traditional categories.
- Assuming all jurisdictions use the traditional categories — a significant number of states have adopted the Rowland general duty approach.
- Forgetting the open and obvious danger doctrine, which may eliminate the duty to warn even in invitee cases.
Memory Aid
ILT framework: Invitees get Inspection + Warning, Licensees get Known-hazard warnings only, Trespassers get minimal protection (no Willful/Wanton harm).