Torts
Class Notes
The
general rule for trespassers is that there’s no duty to an undiscovered
trespasser. Notice how this is reminiscent
of the “last clear chance” rule.
This
is a “rule-oriented” part of the course.
Your duty to licensees and trespassers is less than the ordinary
standard of care. However, the standard
of care that you are due invitees is precisely the ordinary reasonable standard
of care.
Why
should landowners have to duty to protect wrongdoers who are committing a tort
against them?
Sheehan
v.
You
can’t wantonly and willfully harm a trespasser, even though there is no duty to
an undiscovered trespasser. Trespassers don’t
get the benefit of last clear chance because they’re there wrongfully. Last clear chance wouldn’t require the
landowner to do anything in particular to protect the trespasser.
Is
there any other duty to a known trespasser?
Do you have a duty to warn?
For
an invitor, you might actually have to fix dangerous things on your land.
What
is it about sinkholes that might make a landowner’s liability even less? Sinkholes are natural. They are created naturally and not by the
landowner. Artificial conditions are
those that you create.
You
do have a duty to warn known trespassers of artificial conditions that involve
a risk of death or serious injury.
What
would a reasonable landowner do under the circumstances?
What
does a landowner have to do to discharge their duty?
Shooting
will generally be viewed as excessive use of force against trespassers.
We
will talk about technical trespassers and child trespassers.
Barmore
v. Elmore
What’s
your duty to a licensee? Do you have any
duty to them? You have to warn them of
hidden dangers that they’re likely to encounter.
Was
the plaintiff going over to the defendant’s house for social reasons, or for
business reasons? If it’s the latter,
then it leans more towards the plaintiff being an invitee than a licensee.
The
presumption that someone comes to your house for social reasons is a strong
presumption. Though there is a business
aspect to this relationship, the social aspect seems to overwhelm the business
aspect.
There
is a duty to warn a licensee of dangerous conditions known to the landowner
where he knows it creates an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee, the
licensee is unaware of the condition, and the licensee is unlikely to discover it.
Courts
will declare pretty much anything that happens at a house a licensee situation
at best.
Homeowners
shouldn’t have the burden of preparing for business visitors.
The
plaintiff fell into a trap door at a cigar store. The plaintiff wanted to be considered an
invitee. Even though the plaintiff didn’t
plan to make a purchase on that particular day, the plaintiff could still be an
invitee even though the defendant tries to characterize the plaintiff as a “loiterer”.
You
can within someone’s premises change from an invitee to a licensee or a
trespasser. If the plaintiff had just
been a licensee instead of an invitee, the defendant may have still been liable.
What
if someone knocks on your door, seeking refuge from a storm and they trip and
fall on your porch? How would we
characterize that person? They wouldn’t
quite be a licensee, nor would they quite be a trespasser.
What
if you hired someone to mow your lawn and they were injured by some hidden,
dangerous condition in your land? They
would be an invitee because you hired them.
If there is an economic benefit to you to have that person there, then
they’re an invitee.
What
if a father goes to a hospital to visit a daughter who works there? He slips and falls, how would you
characterize him?