2. landlord-tenant. Traditionally, there was little of landowner duties to protect. Traditionally, the tenant is viewed as the temporary owner. Landowner transfers all duties to the lessee. Activities on may fall on landlord if criminal activity is involved. Duty of landowner may be to have better locks, patrols, etc. Why in kline is the landpwn3r responsibility? The landpwn3r is still in control of common area. Lessee has not taken responsibility. Posecai. What is her status? Old school- invitee. There is a heightened duty of care for them to protect the activities of others on the land. Why does Louisiana court feel she should not collect? Court says this kind of incident is too unforeseeable. Goes over tests jurisdictions have chosen. 1. specific harm a.pretty much a dead letter, but what would this require in this case? Employee sees someone lurking in the parking lot. Very difficult to establish, except for implausible events. 2. prior similar incidents a. past history should put landowner on notice of future risk. Different standards depending on number and severity of past incidents, and similarity. The record that this sams had would not satisfy the prior incidents test. 3. totality of circumstances a. how is this different than prior incidents? How is this more flexible in operation? Also nature of business? Even if this 7-11 has never been robbed, even if bank has never been robbed, they can’t say “never occurred to us, not foreseeable that we could be robbed.” The physical circumstances, are there shrubs, dark spots, look at characteristics of location. Closer to RPS 4.balancing test. Why does plaintiff lose when you use balancing test? Looks at severity of harm and forseeability versus what it will cost the business to provide the security. Uses BPL factors. Court also combines the prior similar incidents, that is added to the B.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 95 pages?
- Spring '08
- Tort Law, duty, Special Relationship