DOCSLIB.ORG

Opposing Summary Judgment Motions Brought Under the “Open and Obvious Danger” Defense

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Opposing Summary Judgment Motions Brought Under the “Open and Obvious Danger” Defense Opposing Summary Judgment Motions Brought under the “Open and Obvious Danger” Defense by Michael G. Bersani INTRODUCTION Generally, the “open and obvious danger” doctrine holds that a landowner has no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers. See, Tagle v. Jakob, 97 N.Y.2d 165, 169, 737 N.Y.S.2d 331 (2001). This is because the obviousness of the danger itself is deemed to constitute an adequate warning. Pinero v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 251, 252, 743 N.Y.S.2d 21, 23 (1st Dept 2002); DeMarrais v. Swift, 283 A.D.2d 540, 724 N.Y.S.2d 766 (2nd Dept 2001); Rolfe v. Galt, 102 A.D.2d 983, 984, 477 N.Y.S.2d 790, 791 (3rd Dept 1984); Olsen v. State of New York, 30 A.D.2d 759, 759-760, 291 N.Y.S.2d 833, (4th Dept 1968), affd, 25 N.Y.2d 665, 306 N.Y.S.2d 474, 254 N.E.2d 774. Although there is consensus regarding the general rule, there is a split in Appellate Division authority regarding whether a landowner is generally entitled to summary judgment upon a showing that the danger was open and obvious. Further, there appears to be a recent trend in New York towards application of the Restatement rule (Second Restatement of Torts § 343A [1] [1965]) regarding open and obvious dangers. Plaintiffs’ attorneys have a better chance of surviving summary judgment if they understand (1) the Restatement rule; (2) the general principles of landowner liability set forth in the landmark case of Basso v. Miller, supra and (3) the split in the appellate divisions regarding the open and obvious danger doctrine. THE RESTATEMENT RULE The Second Restatement of Torts reads, in relevant part: (1) A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. Comment (f) of this Restatement further explains: There are . cases in which the possessor of land can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee notwithstanding its known or obvious danger. In such cases the possessor is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care which he owes to the invitee for his protection. This duty may require him to warn the invitee, or to take other reasonable steps to protect him, against the known or obvious condition or activity, if the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee will nevertheless suffer physical harm. 71 South St., Auburn, NY 13021 | 245 Commerce Blvd., Liverpool, NY 13088 | 866.698.8169 | © 2008, Michaels & Smolak, P.C., Trial and Personal Injury Lawyers 1 Such reason to expect harm to the visitor from known or obvious dangers may arise, for example, where the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee’s attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it. Such reason may also arise where the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee will proceed to encounter the known or obvious danger because to a reasonable man in his position the advantages of doing so would outweigh the apparent risk. In such cases the fact that the danger is known, or is obvious, is important in determining whether the invitee is to be charged with contributory negligence, or assumption of risk. (See §§ 466 and 496 D.) It is not, however, conclusive in determining the duty of the possessor, or whether he has acted reasonably under the circumstances. Restatement [Second] of Torts § 343A (1) (1965) (emphasis added). Thus, under the Restatement, where the landowner should have anticipated the harm toward plaintiff [i.e., the harm was foreseeable] despite the open and obvious nature of the danger, the landowner’s duty toward plaintiff does not vanish. Rather, the openness and obviousness of the danger goes to the issue of comparative negligence. BASSO V. MILLER In the 1976 Court of Appeals seminal case of Basso v. Miller, the concurrence opinion cited to this Restatement rule with approval, yet case law applying the Restatement in New York is scarce. (40 NY2d 233, 244-245, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564). The Restatement rule, however, dovetails perfectly with the general principles of landowner liability announced in Basso, where the key factor to consider in determining landowner liability is foreseeability in view of all the circumstances. In Basso, the Court of Appeals abandoned the rigid categories of landowner liability based on a plaintiff’s status vis-à-vis the landowner (licensee, trespasser or invitee) in favor of a more flexible rule “of reasonable care under the circumstances.” (Basso v. Miller, supra, at 241). In so doing, the Court “correlat[ed] the duty of care owed plaintiff with the risk of harm reasonably to be perceived, regardless of status” and announced “adherence to the single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances where by foreseeability shall be a measure of liability.” Id (emphasis added). The Court held that “[a] landowner must act as a reasonable man in maintaining his property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all the circumstances, including the likelihood of injury to others, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk.” Id. This duty to act “reasonably under the circumstances” clearly was to apply both to the duty to warn of danger and to otherwise act to eliminate foreseeable danger to foreseeable plaintiffs. See, id. Since Basso was decided, the New York appellate divisions have split, as described below, on whether a showing that the danger was “open and obvious”, without more, generally requires dismissal of plaintiff’s case. Those Courts that routinely dismiss such cases on summary judgment appear to ignore the flexible approach in determining a landowner’s duty announced in Basso. In other words, they fail to conduct an analysis of whether, “in view of all the circumstances of the case”, the landowner should have foreseen harm to plaintiff. 71 South St., Auburn, NY 13021 | 245 Commerce Blvd., Liverpool, NY 13088 | 866.698.8169 | © 2008, Michaels & Smolak, P.C., Trial and Personal Injury Lawyers 2 APPELLATE DIVISION SPLIT Here is how the Departments are split: FIRST DEPARTMENT: The First Department rule generally is that an “open and obvious danger does not negate [defendant’s] duty to plaintiff [to keep the premises reasonably safe], but simply raises issues of fact as to her comparative fault”. Tuttle v. Anne LeConey, Inc., 258 A.D.2d 334, 685 N.Y.S.2d 204 (1st Dept 1999); but see, Pinero v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc., 294 A.D.2d 251, 743 N.Y.S.2d 21 (1st Dept 2002) (summary judgment granted to defendant in part because “there is no duty to protect or warn against conditions that are in plain view, open, obvious and readily observable”). In Orellana v. Merola Associates, Inc., 287 A.D.2d 412, 731 N.Y.S.2d 726 (1st Dept 2001), for example, plaintiff was injured when he tripped and fell on warped plywood covering newly cemented steps. In dismissing defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court held that “even if the dangerous condition were readily observable, such fact would go to the issue of comparative negligence and would not negate defendants’ duty to keep the premises reasonably safe.” In some cases, however, where plaintiff clearly seems to have assumed a known risk, the First Department is willing to dismiss plaintiffs’ cases as a matter of law. For example in Garcia v. New York City Housing Authority, 234 A.D.2d 102, 650 N.Y.S.2d 715 (1st Dept 1996) plaintiff entered a fenced-off yard under construction and climbed a mound of snow and ice, left by construction workers, to retrieve a cat, and then slipped and fell from the mound. The court granted summary judgment to defendant, noting that the mound of ice and snow “was open and obvious and . could have been avoided by the exercise of reasonable care”. FOURTH DEPARTMENT: Of all the New York jurisdictions, the Fourth Department is the most plaintiff-friendly with regard to the open and obvious danger doctrine. In this jurisdiction, although a landowner has “no duty to warn plaintiff of the open and obvious condition”, the landowner nevertheless has a continuing duty to “keep [the] premises reasonably safe”. Holl v. Holl, 270 A.D.2d 864, 705 N.Y.S.2d 783 (4th Dept 2000). The fact that the danger is open and obvious “goes to the issue of comparative negligence and does not negate the duty of defendant to keep [the] premises reasonably safe” (Holl v. Holl, supra; see, Patterson v. Troyer Potato Products, Inc., 273 A.D.2d 865, 709 N.Y.S.2d 731 (4th Dept 2000). For example, in Patterson v. Troyer Potato Products, Inc., supra, plaintiff sustained injuries when her lower right leg struck a shelf protruding into the aisle of a Convenient Food Mart store. Defendant moved for summary judgment based on the open and obvious danger doctrine. The Court denied summary judgment, holding that “even assuming, arguendo, that the protruding shelf was readily observable, we conclude that such fact would go to the issue of comparative negligence and [would] not negate the duty of defendants to keep their premises reasonably safe.” The Fourth Department has fairly consistently applied this rule in a variety of settings, including in snow and ice cases.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Can Bystanders Make Failure-To-Warn Claims in Toxic Tort Cases? by Stephen D
    THE OLDEST LAW JOURNAL IN THE UNITED STATES 1843-2019 PHILADELPHIA, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2019 VOL 259 • NO. 38 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Can Bystanders Make Failure-to-Warn Claims in Toxic Tort Cases? BY STEPHEN D. DALY STEPHEN D. DALY is an Special to the Legal attorney with the environ- Despite the mental, energy and land failure-to-warn claim is a use law and litigation firm similarities in staple of products liability of Manko, Gold, Katcher the strict liability and A litigation. The basic premise & Fox, located just outside is that a manufacturer or seller of Philadelphia. He can be negligent failure-to-warn failed to warn a consumer about an reached at 484-430-2338 unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm or [email protected]. theories, the court associated with the use of a product. Plaintiffs pursuing toxic tort cases liability or negligence theories, although dismissed the strict have begun to rely on failure-to-warn the distinction between the two theories liability claim but claims outside the strict consumer/ is murky. The Pennsylvania Supreme seller context. Specifically, several Court, in the context of addressing not the negligence personal injury lawsuits relating to product design defects, has instructed the emerging contaminant per- and that the theory of strict products liability claim. polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) “overlaps in effect” with the theory of have relied on failure-to-warn theories negligence, although the court has tried against manufacturers of PFAS. These to maintain a distinction between the defendant owed a duty to provide lawsuits are distinct from many failure- two theories, as in Tincher v.
    [Show full text]
  • Volk V. Demeerleer Study
    Volk v. DeMeerleer Study Commissioned by: Washington State Legislature House Judiciary Committee December 1, 2017 UW School of Law Center for Law, Science and Global Health Volk v. DeMeerleer Study Research Team Tanya E. Karwaki, JD, LLM, PhD Research Associate, Center for Law, Science and Global Health Jaclyn Greenberg, JD, LLM (candidate) Annemarie Weiss, LLM Gavin Keene, JD (candidate) Faculty Supervisors Patricia C. Kuszler, MD, JD Charles I. Stone Professor of Law Faculty Director, Center for Law, Science, and Global Health Terry J. Price, MSW, JD Executive Director, Center for Law, Science, and Global Health VOLK V. DEMEERLEER STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 3 II. Comprehensive Review of the “Duty to Warn” and the “Duty to Protect” ............................................ 5 A. Background: The Tarasoff Case and the Duties to Endangered Third Parties ............................... 5 B. Review of Case Law and Legislative Provisions Across the United States ..................................... 7 1. Terminology with Respect to the “Duty to Protect” and the “Duty to Warn” ......................... 7 2. Summary of the National 50-State (plus District of Columbia) Legislative and Case Survey .. 8 a) Description of the Duty to Third Parties ............................................................................. 8 b) Who Has a Duty to Third Parties in the Context of Mental Health Care .........................
    [Show full text]
  • Duty to Warn of Naturally Occurring Hazards at Recreational Facilities
    www.rbs2.com/ltgwarn2.pdf 30 Sep 2007 Page 1 of 59 Legal Duty in the USA to Warn of Naturally Occurring Hazards At Recreational Facilities Copyright 2007 by Ronald B. Standler Keywords act of God, Breaux, cases, control, danger, dangerous, duty, flood, golf, golfers, hazard, hazardous, hazards, invitee, invitees, law, legal, liable, liability, lightning, MacLeod, Maussner, natural, naturally occurring, ocean, Pacheco, protect, protection, recreational, reliance, relied, rely, ripcurrent, riptide, safety, Sall, shelter, surf, thunderstorm, undertow, warn, warning, water, weather, wind Table of Contents Introduction . 3 Old Legal Rule . 3 invitees, licensees, trespassers . 5 a few cases . 5 reliance . 6 State Statutes . 7 California . 7 Louisiana . 7 New York . 8 Ohio . 10 Pennsylvania . 10 Texas . 11 Act of God . 12 Case Law: Lightning at Recreational Facilities . 14 Davis (golf) . 14 Bier (picnic shelter) . 15 Schieler (National Park) . 16 Hames (golf) . 16 Pichardo (baseball) . 17 McAuliffe (swimming at lake) . 18 Dykema (outdoor basketball game) . 19 MacLeod (mountain peak at National Park) . 20 Maussner (golf) . 22 Blanchard (picnic in park) . 23 www.rbs2.com/ltgwarn2.pdf 30 Sep 2007 Page 2 of 59 Grace (golf) . 24 Jaffe (golf) . 24 Chapple (state park) . 25 Seelbinder (beach) . 25 Patton (after rugby game) . 26 Sall (golf) . 29 reliance in Sall . 30 Mack (softball game at prison) . 32 conclusion . 32 Case Law: Other Natural Hazards at Recreational Facilities . 32 Butts (swimming) . 33 Tarshis (swimming at beach) . 34 Gonzales (riptide) . 34 reliance in Gonzales . 36 Missar (skiing) . 38 Mostert (theater has duty to warn of flood) . 39 Fuhrer (possible duty to warn of riptide) . 41 Caldwell v.
    [Show full text]
  • Duty to Protect Or Warn What Those Situations Are (Striefel, 2003, 2004)
    Biofeedback ©Association for Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback Volume 36, Issue 3, pp. 86–89 www.aapb.org PROFESSIONAL ISSUES Duty to Protect or Warn Sebastian “Seb” Striefel, PhD Department of Psychology, Utah State University, Logan, UT Keywords: duty, warn, protect, risk assessment, confidentiality Violence is a fact of life. As such, virtually every state has Health care professionals—by virtue of being pro- laws specifying that health care professionals have a duty fessionals—are holding themselves out to the public as to protect or warn, and the specific legal requirements having special knowledge and skills in the form of services vary from state to state and discipline to discipline. Every for which some clients and some third parties are willing biofeedback practitioner providing mental health care to pay. Being a professional means that one has special and related services should be familiar with the relevant obligations and responsibilities to those served and often laws of the state in which he or she practices and with to others as specified in ethical principles (Association for the court precedents related to that law. Being able to Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 2003), practice deal appropriately with the relevant issues surrounding guidelines and standards (Striefel, 2004), and laws. This confidentiality and the ability to assess for, predict article will focus primarily on health care professionals’ dangerousness to self and others, and deal with the same are responsibilities as specified in the duty to protect and/or expected standards of care that can vary in implementation warn laws. from state to state. Consultation with colleagues and/or an attorney can be important.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pluralistic Analysis of the Therapist/Physician Duty to Warn Third Parties
    A PLURALISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE THERAPIST/PHYSICIAN DUTY TO WARN THIRD PARTIES W. Jonathan Cardi* Following Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California1 and a majority of jurisdictions,2 section 41 of the Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Physical Harm imposes a duty on mental-health professionals (“therapists”) to warn foreseeable victims of a risk posed by one of their patients.3 The Restatement (Third) “takes no position,” however, as to whether a non-mental- health physician owes a similar duty to warn foreseeable third parties of a risk, for example, of communicating disease, posed by one of the physician’s patients.4 This brief Article explores both the accuracy and the viability of this distinction and its theoretical underpinnings. Specifically, the Article takes three positions: (1) as a purely descriptive matter, the Restatement (Third) ought to recognize a physician’s duty to warn foreseeable third parties, (2) as a normative matter, the question is more nuanced perhaps even than the courts and the Restatement (Third) recognize, and (3) the courts’ and the Restatement (Third)’s analysis of the issue is best captured by a pluralistic understanding of tort law. I. EVALUATING THE DESCRIPTIVE ACCURACY OF SECTION 41 Suppose that during the course of treatment, a patient tells his therapist that he intends to harm his ex-girlfriend. Should the therapist have a duty of reasonable care to warn the ex-girlfriend? This was the question in the Tarasoff case, and the California Supreme Court answered that a therapist does owe a duty to use * Dorothy Salmon Professor of Law, University of Kentucky.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Liability of Occupiers of Land: Duties Owed to Trespassers
    TORT LIABILITY OF OCCUPIERS OF LAND: DUTIES OWED TO TRESPASSERS FLEMING JAMES, JXt THE scope of duty in negligence cases ' is coming increasingly to be mea- sured by the famous formulation: "Whenever one person is placed by circumstances in such a posi- tion in regard to another that every one of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognize that if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances, he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a 2duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid such danger." One of the situations in which the application of this test has been con- ventionally denied, however, is where plaintiff has voluntarily placed himself within reach of the effects of defendant's failure to take precautions3 The chief example of such a situation is the case where plaintiff voluntarily comes upon land occupied by defendant, and is injured there by a dangerous con- dition of the premises or by some activity of the occupier.4 The judicial approach to this problem, formulated during the course of the 19th century and still providing the point of departure for modern reason- ing, divides persons entering land into classes, and graduates accordingly the duties owed by the land occupier.5 Under the conventional approach, the three classes of entrants onto land are trespassers, licensees, and invitees. Those who enter land without the occupier's permission or any other right to do so, are trespassers. To them, the occupier owes no duty with reference to the condition of the premises, save this: he must refrain from intentionally tLafayette S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tarasoff and Duty to Protect in North Carolina By
    Tarasoff and Duty to Protect in North Carolina By: A. Keith Mobley, Eugene Naughton Mobley, A. K., & Naughton, E. (2011). Tarasoff and duty to protect in North Carolina. NC Perspectives, 4, 5-14. Made available courtesy of North Carolina Counseling Association (NCCA): http://nccounselingassociation.org/publications/journal/ ***© NCCA. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from NCCA. *** ***Note: Full text of article below NC Perspectives • Fall 2011• Volume 4 Tarasoff and Duty to Protect in North Carolina A. Keith Mobley, PhD, LPC and Eugene Naughton, JD A counselor’s duty to warn and protect third parties of threats made by their clients has been a complex, frightening, and confusing topic since the landmark Tarasoff case in 1976. Although the implications of this case has been interpreted by a variety of state courts and legislatures, the tension between a counselor’s ethical and legal re- sponsibilities creates consternation for many counselors in North Carolina. This arti- cle reviews the background and implications of the duty to warn concept to counsel- ors specifically in the state of North Carolina and provides both proactive and reac- tive suggestions for managing encounters with potentially violent clients. Keywords: duty to warn, confidentiality, ethics In 1976, the California Supreme Court and who do not fully understand the limits of handed down its landmark decision in Tarasoff confidentiality in their state (Walcott, Cerun- v. Regents of the University of California, and the dolo, & Beck, 2001), including those in North effects of that decision are still felt today Carolina. across the nation in both the legal and coun- The extensive implications of the Tarasoff seling professions.
    [Show full text]
  • Negligence - Duty of Due Care-Invitee/Liscensee/Trespasser Distinction Abolished - Rowland V
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 10 (1968-1969) Issue 2 Article 16 December 1968 Negligence - Duty of Due Care-Invitee/Liscensee/Trespasser Distinction Abolished - Rowland v. Christian, __Cal. 2d__ , 443 P. 2d 561, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1968) Douglas Bergere Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Torts Commons Repository Citation Douglas Bergere, Negligence - Duty of Due Care-Invitee/Liscensee/Trespasser Distinction Abolished - Rowland v. Christian, __Cal. 2d__ , 443 P. 2d 561, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1968), 10 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 495 (1968), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol10/iss2/16 Copyright c 1968 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr 1968] CURRENT DECISIONS Since the employee must bear the risk that the official issuing the instructions does not have the proper authority, no government em- ployee implementing orders can tell with certainty whether or not he will receive absolute immunity for his acts. Such uncertainty was noted by Mr. Chief Justice Warren in the standard formulated in Barr v. Matteo.2" Still unanswered under this formula is at what echelon of governmental duty the privilege inures. Perhaps this recognition of the privilege for the subordinate, the un- certainty among scholars as to the reach of the absolute privilege, and! the deliberate choice by the CIA of defamation as an instrument of national policy 2 will lead to a reexamination by the Supreme Court -of the language as well as the rationale of Bavr v.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Practitioners: a Social Work Perspective on Discharging the Duty to Protect
    Guidelines for Practitioners: A Social Work Perspective on Discharging the Duty to Protect Karen Tapp, BSW, MSSW, JD, Assistant Professor [email protected] Darrell Payne, BSW, MSW, JD, Assistant Professor [email protected] Northern Kentucky University, Social Work Program Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, Volume 8, Number 2 (2011) Copyright 2011, White Hat Communications This text may be freely shared among individuals, but it may not be republished in any medium without express written consent from the authors and advance notification of White Hat Communications. Abstract California 345, 1976). When a duty to protect issue arises in practice, social In situations in which a client is deemed to workers may experience ambivalence and present a serious risk of violence to another, uncertainty with respect to the need to a responsibility arises for the counselor to reconcile and integrate the professional use reasonable care to shield the anticipated ethics of confidentiality and legal mandates victim from such danger. Guidelines are of the duty to protect. This article reviews a provided to assist social workers in ethical brief history of the Tarasoff decision. The practice in “duty to protect” situations while Tarasoff duty to protect standard and the avoiding malpractice. ensuing uncertainty about the standard’s meaning and application based on Keywords: duty to protect, social work, inconsistent court opinions will be explored. ethical mental health practice, ethical Social workers’ ethical obligations are dilemma, client danger to third parties addressed as they relate to the duty to 1. Introduction protect standard. Finally, guidelines are set forth to assist social workers in ethical The Tarasoff doctrine directs that when the practice in duty to protect situations while therapist determines, or ought to determine, avoiding malpractice.
    [Show full text]
  • Personal Tort Law
    SMU Law Review Volume 64 Issue 1 Article 22 2011 Personal Tort Law Meredith J. Duncan Jacquelyn Craig Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Meredith J. Duncan & Jacquelyn Craig, Personal Tort Law, 64 SMU L. REV. 451 (2011) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol64/iss1/22 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. PERSONAL TORT LAW Meredith J. Duncan* Jacquelyn Craig** I. INTRODUCTION ........................................ 451 II. DUTY OF CARE IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS ........ 452 A. DUTY OF PRIVATE BUSINESSES OR PREMISES O WNERS .............................................. 452 B. DUTY OF THE SOVEREIGN ............................. 456 1. Premises Liability and the Recreational Use Statute ............................................. 457 2. Ordinary Premises Liability ....................... 460 C. DuTY TO WARN UNDER THE LEARNED INTERMEDIARY DOCTRINE ............................ 462 III. REPOSE STATUTE AS ABSOLUTE BAR IN ALL MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS ................. 463 IV. WRONGFUL DISCHARGE ............................. 465 A. No LIABILITY OF INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES ............ 465 B. AVAILABILITY OF PUNITIVE DAMAGES ................ 466 V. CONCLUSION ........................................... 468 I. INTRODUCTION HIS Survey period, the Texas courts were busy shaping and refin- ing personal tort law with the greatest development focusing on the legal contours of the duty of care in negligence actions. This article begins by discussing various cases defining one's duty of care in premises liability actions, including duty of private businesses and prem- ises owners,1 as well as duty of the sovereign. 2 It next discusses cases considering duty to warn within the context of the learned intermediary doctrine.
    [Show full text]
  • Owners and Occupiers of Land Now Owe Those Lawfully on Their Rp Emises a Duty of Reasonable Care Under Heins V
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 76 | Issue 1 Article 6 1997 Owners and Occupiers of Land Now Owe Those Lawfully on Their rP emises a Duty of Reasonable Care under Heins v. Webster County, 250 Neb. 750, 552 N.W.2d 51 (1996) Kristin K. Woodward University of Nebraska College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Kristin K. Woodward, Owners and Occupiers of Land Now Owe Those Lawfully on Their Premises a Duty of Reasonable Care under Heins v. Webster County, 250 Neb. 750, 552 N.W.2d 51 (1996), 76 Neb. L. Rev. (1997) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol76/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Note Owners and Occupiers of Land Now Owe Those Lawfully on Their Premises a Duty of Reasonable Care Under Heins v. Webster County, 250 Neb. 750, 552 N.W.2d 51 (1996) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 184 II. Background ........................................... 185 A. Policy Reasons .................................... 188 B. The New Nebraska Position ....................... 189 III. Analysis .............................................. 190 A. Rigid Application of Common Law Distinctions ..... 190 B. Defining Licensees/Invitees ........................ 192 C. Social Guests ...................................... 195 D. What About Trespassers? . 195 E. Effect Heins Will Have on Nebraska Law .......... 201 IV. Conclusion ............................................ 202 I. INTRODUCTION Throughout its relatively short history, American law has placed a special value on the rights of real property owners.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts: Liability of Owners and Occupiers of Land Mark A
    Marquette Law Review Volume 58 Article 6 Issue 3 1975 (Number 3) Torts: Liability of Owners and Occupiers of Land Mark A. Peterson Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Mark A. Peterson, Torts: Liability of Owners and Occupiers of Land, 58 Marq. L. Rev. 609 (1975). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol58/iss3/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES LIABILITY OF OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS OF LAND Several jurisdictions have recently abolished the traditional dis- tinction between trespassers, licensees and invitees in determining whether owners or occupiers of land are liable to persons who come upon the land and receive injuries. In these jurisdictions ordinary negligence rules will determine whether the owners or occupiers are liable for the injuries.' Other jurisdictions, including Wisconsin, still adhere to the traditional approach of separate and distinct duties of care owed to trespassers, licensees and invitees. 2 However in these jurisdictions recent decisions point toward a potential change in judicial attitude.3 Whether the traditional approach creates problems of interpre- tation and classification should be evaluated to determine if a change in the law is necessary. If such a change is needed, a deter- mination must be made as to the form that change should take and as to the kind of entrants on land to which that change should apply.
    [Show full text]