Duties of Owners and Occupiers of Land

1. Duties of Owners and Occupiers of Land

2. Duties of Landowners The extent of D’s duty (the standard of care) may vary depending on whether the P is a: • Trespasser (and type of trespasser) • Licensee: Social guest (enters the property with the owner’s express or implied consent). • Invitee: Business guest (enters the property for purposes connected to the owner’s business); or public invitee.

3. Duties of Landowners The extent of D’s duty (the standard of care) may also vary depending on whether the injury arises from a: • Dangerous Activity • Dangerous Condition • Open and obvious, or hidden? • Artificial, or natural?

4. Duties to Trespassers Big-Picture Common Law Takeaways • Generally, the duty owed to trespassers was only to avoid willful/wanton misconduct. • See Haskins v. Grybkore: unknown trespassers; Rest. 2d §333 • But in cases of known/constant trespassers or child trespassers, this dutyis heightened to some degree(varies by jurisdiction) • See Rest. 2d §334 (dangerous activities) and §337 (dangerous artificial conditions) re: known trespassers • See Keffe v. Milwaukee RR; Rest. 2d §339 (dangerous artificial conditions)

5. Child Trespassers Rest. 2d §339 (Attractive Nuisance Doctrine)Landowner must exercise reasonable care to trespassing children if: • D knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass; • D knows or has reason to know of a dangerous artificial condition on his property that involves an unreasonable risk of death or bodily harm; • Children do not know the condition or its risk; • Utility of the condition to D is low; burden of prevention is low compared to the risk.

6. Duties to Licensees and Invitees Big-Picture Common Law Takeaways: • Historically, landowners owed a higher duty to invitees than to licensees Licensees (social guests): • Ordinary care in activities • Warn of known hidden dangerous conditions Invitees (business guests, public): • Ordinary care in activities • Inspect for hidden dangerous conditions, and warn or correct

7. Duties to Licensees and Invitees Big-Picture Common Law Takeaways: • Today, many states merge the invitee/licensee category and impose on those landowners a single duty of reasonable care.  • This may extend to trespassers as well: Rest. 3d §51 imposes a general duty of reasonable care to all entrants on the land regardless of their status (even trespassers)

8. Rowland v. Christian Approach • Abandons distinctions between trespasser, licensee, and invitee. • “A man’s life or limb does not become less worthy of protection by the law nor a loss less worthy of compensation under the law because he has come upon the land of another without permission or with permission but without a business purpose.” • Instead, use the “ordinary care” standard. • Look to foreseeability of harm, burden to D, cost of insurance, etc.

9. Illinois Approach 1984 Illinois Premises Liability Act: • For invitees and licensees, a duty to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances relating to acts or conditions. • For trespassers, a duty to refrain from willful and wanton misconduct. Held unconstitutional, but likely relevant: The duty of reasonable care does not include a duty to warn of (i) obvious/discoverable dangerous conditions, (ii)dangers the landowner doesn’t know about, (iii) dangers resulting from the entrant’s misuse of the premises.

10. Restatement 3rd Approach Rest. 3rd § 51: General Duty of Land Possessors: A land possessor owes a duty of reasonable care to entrants on the land with regard to: • conduct that creates risks; • artificial conditions that pose risks; • natural conditions that pose risks; and • other risks, when other affirmative duties (special relationships) apply

11. Problem: Rhodes v. Illinois RR Conductor finds a bleeding man lying in the warming house. He radios his supervisor twice, but no assistance is forthcoming. Police don’t arrive until 5 hours later. Physician testifies that this delay caused his death.

12. Problem: Rhodes v. Illinois RR Conductor finds a bleeding man lying in the warming house. He radios his supervisor twice, but no assistance is forthcoming. Police don’t arrive until 5 hours later. Physician testifies that this delay caused his death. • What was Rhodes’ status? • What duty did the RR owe him? • Did the RR breach its duty?

13. Problem: Rhodes v. Illinois RR At Trial: Trial court instructs the jury that D could be held liable if it “observed the decedent lying injured but failed to further investigate or to provide assistance or attend to the decedent” (regardless of his status). Juryfinds for P. Holding On Appeal: Jury instruction was erroneous. • If invitee: Duty to investigate further, assist. • If trespasser: No duty to assist, unless (i) P’s injury results from a condition on D’s property; (ii) P is discovered in a “place of danger;” (iii) there was a special relationship; (iv) there was an undertaking.

14. Duties to Rescue Cobbling together an answer from the Restatements: • D puts P in peril/creates the risk of harm: • Rest. 2d §321, 322; Rest. 3d §29, 37 • D holds land open to the public: • Rest. 2d § 314A; Rest. 3d §40 • P is helpless • See Rest. 3d §52: Duty to assist “flagrant trespassers” who are imperiled and helpless

15. Back to Yania So how does all this square with Yaniav. Bigan? • In Yania, what was P’s status? • Thus, what was D’s basic duty under the common law standards? • Why did the court in Yaniahold there no duty to rescue?