Schuster v. City of NY: LIABILITY for police for failing to protect an informant they solicited Duties of Land Owners/Occupiers Trespasser: Someone who enters or remains on land without permission to do so Duty towards trespassers Landowner must know trespasser is there The hazard must be an artificial condition The hazard must not be obvious to the trespasser Licensee: Social guests; someone invited into a private home Duty towards licensees (see RST 341, p. 263) Landowner has a duty only if they know/should know about the hazard No duty to inspect Or, if the landowner engages in activity that puts the licensee at risk The condition must not be obvious to the licensee Invitee: Business visitors; someone who attends an event or place open to the public, or engages in a mutually beneficial economic exchange Duty towards invitees The landowner has a duty to make sure his premises are safe The hazard must not be obvious to the invitee Why have different standards? Predictability (can’t predict trespassers) Moral judgments (less of a duty to protect wrongdoer) Consequences to community (if there’s always a duty we discourage socializing) Why get rid of the distinctions? (see Rowland) General standard would offer better protection People aren’t more or less worthy of protection based on their reason for being somewhere Herrick v. Wixom: LIABILITY for circus when trespasser injured (they he was in audience) “knew” Davies v. McDowell: NO LIABILITY for carbon monoxide poisoning of licensees; didn’t know Lordi v. Spiotta: LIABILITY because failure to shut off gas was an affirmative act/dangerous Δ‘s Boca v. Mattef: NO LIABILITY because Mattef was a volunteer when he painted watertower Jacobsma v. Goldberg’s: LIABILITY because Jacobsma was an invitee, was asked to help get thief
Schuster v. City of NY: LIABILITY for police for failing to protect an informant they solicited Duties of Land Owners/Occupiers Trespasser: Someone who enters or remains on land without permission to do so Duty towards trespassers Landowner must know trespasser is there The hazard must be an artificial condition The hazard must not be obvious to the trespasser Licensee: Social guests; someone invited into a private home Duty towards licensees (see RST 341, p. 263) Landowner has a duty only if they know/should know about the hazard No duty to inspect Or, if the landowner engages in activity that puts the licensee at risk The condition must not be obvious to the licensee Invitee: Business visitors; someone who attends an event or place open to the public, or engages in a mutually beneficial economic exchange Duty towards invitees The landowner has a duty to make sure his premises are safe The hazard must not be obvious to the invitee Why have different standards? Predictability (can’t predict trespassers) Moral judgments (less of a duty to protect wrongdoer) Consequences to community (if there’s always a duty we discourage socializing) Why get rid of the distinctions? (see Rowland) General standard would offer better protection People aren’t more or less worthy of protection based on their reason for being somewhere Herrick v. Wixom: LIABILITY for circus when trespasser injured (they “knew” he was in audience) Davies v. McDowell: NO LIABILITY for carbon monoxide poisoning of licensees; didn’t know Lordi v. Spiotta: LIABILITY because Δ‘s failure to shut off gas was an affirmative act/dangerous Boca v. Mattef: NO LIABILITY because Mattef was a volunteer when he painted watertower Jacobsma v. Goldberg’s: LIABILITY because Jacobsma was an invitee, was asked to help get thief
Torts%20Outline%20-%20Schoenbaum%20Fall%202012.docx