Human intercourse and the intangible benefits of sharing ones property with

Human intercourse and the intangible benefits of

This preview shows page 23 - 25 out of 60 pages.

was not open to public, thus no claim. “Human intercourse and the intangible benefits of sharing one’s property with others for a mutual purpose are hallmarks of a licensee’s permission to enter.
Image of page 23
1) D says that Carter is a licensee, P says that he is an invitee. a) Trespasser – refrain from willful or wanton conduct, or gross negligence b) Licensee – social guest, permitted to be on land. c) Invitee – admitted for commercial purposes (or with expectation of a material benefit) or where there is an invitation extended to the public generally. 3) Three main classes of plaintiffs (and related duties). a) trespassers – no duty of care except to not unreasonably injure or kill b) licensees – duty to make safe dangers of which possessor is aware, and visitor is unaware c) invitees – reasonable care under circs ( Brown v. Kendall) , B<PL. d) people are trespassers until invited, then licensees until it’s clear that the land possessor has an “interest in the visit such that the visitor has reason to believe that the premises have been made safe to receive him.” [ Brown v. Kendall – reasonable care under circs] Squibs: 1) Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship (MI 2000) , the Court held that a person who tripped in a church parking lot was a licensee, with the reasoning that the “imposition of additional expense and effort by the landowner, requiring the landowner to inspect the premises and make them safe for a visitor, must be directly tied to the owner’s commercial business interests.” 2) The general duty of a landowner is “simply not to willfully or wantonly harm trespassers.” 3) Bennett v. Napolitano (RI 2000) , a guy gets hit by a falling tree limb in a park at 2 A.M., and the Court held him a trespasser because the park closed at 9 p.m. 4) The courts remain divided over “open and obvious” dangers. Is a possessor liable to harm when the danger is extremely obvious? Some say yes, some say no. 5) What about activities taking place while on the premises? Britt v. Allen County Community Jr. College (KS 1982), a guy doing a sales presentation gets hurt by a piano being moved by a custodian, and the Court finds that the land possessor owed him no duty. However, this was later overruled in Bowers v. Ottenad (KS 1986),
Image of page 24
Image of page 25

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 60 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture