Term
| Duty to Person Off Land - Artificial Condition |
|
Definition
| A landowner has a general duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to persons off the land from artificial conditions on the land. |
|
|
Term
| Duty to Person Off Land - Natural Condition |
|
Definition
| No duty to protect persons outside premises from injuries caused by natural condition of land |
|
|
Term
| Tree Exception to Duty off Land - Majority Approach |
|
Definition
| (2) Restatement 363—MAJORITY APPROACH 1) Except as stated in Subsection (2), neither a possessor of land, nor a vendor, lessor, or other transferor, is liable for physical harm caused to others outside of the land by a natural condition of the land. (2) A possessor of land in an urban area is subject to liability to persons using a public highway for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm arising from the condition of trees on the land near the highway. |
|
|
Term
| Tree Exception to Duty off Land - Emerging trend |
|
Definition
| the landowner is liable for negligence if he knows that the tree is defective and fails to take reasonable precautions. Taylor v. Olsen (rotted tree on highway). |
|
|
Term
| Duty owed to Unknown Trespasser |
|
Definition
| 1. Historically, as a general rule, the landowner owed no duty to a trespasser to make the land safe, to warn of dangers on it, or to protect the trespasser. |
|
|
Term
| Duty Owed to Child Trespasser |
|
Definition
| Children: The landowner with a dangerous artificial condition owes a duty of reasonable care to a trespassing child if certain conditions are met. |
|
|
Term
| Duty Owed to Discovered Trespasser |
|
Definition
| b. Duty to Discovered Trespasser – Ordinary Care –E.g. Railroad: When a trespasser is discovered, the RR owes a duty to use “common human conduct to avert injury to others from means that can be controlled.” Sheehan case (foot severed on tracks). |
|
|
Term
| Discovered Trespasser Exceptions |
|
Definition
Discovered Trespasser. Exception: Avoid injury by active operations – e.g. dangerous machinery – warn or make safe
5. Exception: Concealed danger – give a warning once the possessor of land is aware of the trespasser – e.g. possessor sees trespasser walking toward a pit covered by brush
6. Duty to use ordinary care to avoid injuring trespasser by active operations (Restatement 336 “activities”)
7. Frequent trespassers on limited area – reasonable care for their protection, e.g. warning (Restatement 335)
8. Tolerated intruders – very limited duty – failure to take burdensome, expensive and perhaps futile steps is not a consent to entry
9. Trapped trespasser in peril-duty to take reasonable care once perilous situation is discovered |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1. A licensee is a person who has the owner’s consent to be on the property, but who does not have a business purpose for being there. The main class of persons who qualify as licensees are “social guests.” |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 2. The land owner does not owe a licensee any duty to inspect for unknown dangers, or to fix any known danger. However, the owner does have the duty to warn the licensee of any hidden danger that the owner knows about. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An invitee, under the modern rule, includes: (1) persons who are invited by the owner onto the land to conduct business with the owner; and (2) those who are invited as members of the public for purposes for which the land is held open to the public. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 2. Landowner must keep the premises reasonably safe for the invitee’s use. The landowner owes an invitee a duty of reasonable inspection to find hidden dangers. Also, the owner must take reasonable efforts to fix a dangerous condition |
|
|
Term
| Artificial Condition Highly Dangerous to Children |
|
Definition
| 3. Rest 339 changed that doctrine to “Artificial Conditions Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children”: Child doesn’t have to be enticed, owner just has to have reason to know the children could appear and something on the premises could be dangerous to them. Court uses a utility analysis. Only reasonable care is required (if child is old enough to read a warning sign that is enough). |
|
|
Term
| Rejection or Merging” of Common Law Categories |
|
Definition
| 1. An alternate approach, exemplified in Rowland v. Christian, is to reject or merge the categories (licensee, invitee, trespasser) and apply a single test of reasonableness under the circumstances. (Handle broken on faucet—no matter what category guest fell into a duty to warn was owed) |
|
|
