Duty to those on land a Common Law Status Based Approach i Trespassers 1 CL no

Duty to those on land a common law status based

This preview shows page 8 - 11 out of 23 pages.

1. Duty to those on land a. Common Law (Status Based Approach) (i) Trespassers 1. C/L = no duty to prevent accidental injury a. Duty limited to willful conduct (traps) 2. Majority Modifications for Frequent/Known Trespassers a. i.e. Foreseeable b. Active Operations = obligation to exercise reasonable care c. Artificial Conditions = duty to warn or make safe those known by the possessor that could cause death or serious bodily injury i. No duty to inspect, (i.e. no “should have known”) ii. No duty for natural conditions 3. Child Trespassers (§ 339) a. Elements i. Knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass ii. Knows or has reason to know that there is an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm iii. Due to their youth, children do not discover danger or the risk of intermeddling with it (Higher standard the younger the child) 8
Image of page 8
Torts I 2008 Professor Kornfeld iv. Utility of not eliminating danger is slight compared to risks involved v. Possessor fail to exercise reasonable care to eliminate danger or protect children b. Traditionally required attractive conditions, now any artificial conditions i. Attraction only indicates that trespass was foreseeable (ii) Licensee (Social Guests, Others without a business purpose) 1. Duty limited to: a. Willful and wanton conduct b. Active Operations c. Warn of all known conditions, artificial and natural, that could cause any injury to P i. No duty to repair/make safe ii. in general, licensee takes property as it is found, thus no duty for obvious defects (iii) Invitees (Business visitors) 1. Activities, Conditions: Duty not limited b. Unitary Standard (CA) (i) No limited duty – RP standard 1. Rowland v. Christian (CA) 2. Duty to those outside land a. Natural conditions (i.e. trees) (i) C/L = No Duty even when known (thus no duty to inspect) (ii) Majority Rule 1. Rural areas a. Duty only when known? 2. Urban area Exception a. Duty to inspect (includes duty when known) (iii) Minority Rules show modern trend to general standard of reasonable care 1. Rural trees: duty to inspect a. but what is reasonable may well be less than in urban area i. Taylor v. Olsen (OR) 2. CA – general standard of reasonableness for all natural conditions b. Artificial conditions (i) General Duty iv) Immunities 1. Charitable – mostly eliminated 2. Spousal – mostly eliminated 3. Parent-Child a. Traditional immunity in US for: (i) Intentional torts for battery and assault (ii) Liability for personal injuries caused by negligence (iii) Did not cover property or purely economic torts b. Modifications: (i) Partially Abolished (Majority) 1. Intentional torts, general negligence - immunity eliminated 2. Negligent parenting – immunity preserved (ii) Completely Abolished (CA) 1. Parents must act like reasonable parents 2. Under this system defendants can implead parents 4. Governmental a. Discretionary Acts (Policy Decisions) (i) Immune (ii) Prevents democracy from being usurped 1. Types of policy decisions usually held accountable for in an election 9
Image of page 9
Torts I 2008 Professor Kornfeld b. Ministerial Acts (Routine) (i) Not immune c. No general duty for failure to warn by police d. Statutory Immunity (i) Specific listed acts d)
Image of page 10
Image of page 11

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 23 pages?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes