Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
irish017
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:19 pm

Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby irish017 » Thu Dec 16, 2010 7:58 am

Any tips on remember what these cats are?

User avatar
Nom Sawyer
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 1:28 am

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby Nom Sawyer » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:12 am

I don't think there are many property questions that really need this distinction unless your prof has some strange questions...

But basically Licensee/ Invitee are just people who are allowed on your property, you can revoke and kick them off/ doesn't count towards adverse possession.

Trespassers are those not given permission and can eventually adversely possess your property or gain prescriptive easements.

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby usuaggie » Thu Dec 16, 2010 8:27 am

invitee means you have something to gain. you invite the chance to make money. you owe a duty to reasonably protect them from harm.

licensee is a social guest. you have the duty to warn them of foreseeable harm.

traspasser, you have the duty to not harm them when you dont need to once they are on your property, and to not create an environment that puts them into crazy amnts of risk.


im guessing this is for torts.

User avatar
Helmholtz
Posts: 4418
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 1:48 pm

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby Helmholtz » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:03 pm

Invitee - implied or express invitation to enter and/or remain, mutual benefit, public or business invitee, duty to inspect land for danger, duty to make safe and warn of dangers that are actually or constructively known (although warning might not be enough), also typically imposes special duties such as duty to rescue while on premises.

Licensee - implied or express invitation to enter and/or remain, benefit primarily rests with guest, typically has to do with social guests (people visiting your home, etc), no duty to inspect, duty to make safe and warn of dangers that are actually or constructively known

Trespasser - no express or implied permission to enter and/or remain, basically the only duty is to not wantonly or willfully injure, although you'll run into exceptions to known trespassers, e.g., and may have to warn about artificial conditions on the land that could foreseeably injure, etc.

Also, keep in mind that some jurisdictions have done away with the invitee/licensee status and just impose a general duty of reasonable care to people on the premises with permission to be there (I think some states may have gotten rid of all three distinctions; it never came up in my class).

I don't really know if there are any tips other than just knowing it - it's not that difficult.

When you see a business customer or somebody who entered land that is generally held open to the public, think invitee and duty to inspect/warn/make safe
When you see a social guest, think licensee and duty to warn/make safe
When you see somebody with no permission to enter/remain, think trespasser and duty to not willfully/wantonly injure

User avatar
Gamecubesupreme
Posts: 460
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby Gamecubesupreme » Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:39 pm

Helmholtz wrote:Invitee - implied or express invitation to enter and/or remain, mutual benefit, public or business invitee, duty to inspect land for danger, duty to make safe and warn of dangers that are actually or constructively known (although warning might not be enough), also typically imposes special duties such as duty to rescue while on premises.

Licensee - implied or express invitation to enter and/or remain, benefit primarily rests with guest, typically has to do with social guests (people visiting your home, etc), no duty to inspect, duty to make safe and warn of dangers that are actually or constructively known

Trespasser - no express or implied permission to enter and/or remain, basically the only duty is to not wantonly or willfully injure, although you'll run into exceptions to known trespassers, e.g., and may have to warn about artificial conditions on the land that could foreseeably injure, etc.

Also, keep in mind that some jurisdictions have done away with the invitee/licensee status and just impose a general duty of reasonable care to people on the premises with permission to be there (I think some states may have gotten rid of all three distinctions; it never came up in my class).

I don't really know if there are any tips other than just knowing it - it's not that difficult.

When you see a business customer or somebody who entered land that is generally held open to the public, think invitee and duty to inspect/warn/make safe
When you see a social guest, think licensee and duty to warn/make safe
When you see somebody with no permission to enter/remain, think trespasser and duty to not willfully/wantonly injure


That.

Also, Rowland v. Christian eliminated all three and simply impose a duty of care to warn everyone of possible dangers while Heinz v. Webster County abolished distinction between licensee and invitee.

Not sure about which states follow which though.

savagecheater
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby savagecheater » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:15 pm

Gamecubesupreme wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Invitee - implied or express invitation to enter and/or remain, mutual benefit, public or business invitee, duty to inspect land for danger, duty to make safe and warn of dangers that are actually or constructively known (although warning might not be enough), also typically imposes special duties such as duty to rescue while on premises.

Licensee - implied or express invitation to enter and/or remain, benefit primarily rests with guest, typically has to do with social guests (people visiting your home, etc), no duty to inspect, duty to make safe and warn of dangers that are actually or constructively known

Trespasser - no express or implied permission to enter and/or remain, basically the only duty is to not wantonly or willfully injure, although you'll run into exceptions to known trespassers, e.g., and may have to warn about artificial conditions on the land that could foreseeably injure, etc.

Also, keep in mind that some jurisdictions have done away with the invitee/licensee status and just impose a general duty of reasonable care to people on the premises with permission to be there (I think some states may have gotten rid of all three distinctions; it never came up in my class).

I don't really know if there are any tips other than just knowing it - it's not that difficult.

When you see a business customer or somebody who entered land that is generally held open to the public, think invitee and duty to inspect/warn/make safe
When you see a social guest, think licensee and duty to warn/make safe
When you see somebody with no permission to enter/remain, think trespasser and duty to not willfully/wantonly injure


That.

Also, Rowland v. Christian eliminated all three and simply impose a duty of care to warn everyone of possible dangers while Heinz v. Webster County abolished distinction between licensee and invitee.

Not sure about which states follow which though.


question re: wild animals and trespassers - typically you don't have a duty of care to trespasser (rowland is reasonable care, which means LOLCONTEXTSENSITIVE), but wild animals means strict liability so duty's out the door.

What if you own a large expanse of property (think wooded area in....vermont) and you are aware that in the confines of your territory, as large as it is, wild animals like wolves and bears exist.

How to treat this?

User avatar
usuaggie
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 8:43 pm

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby usuaggie » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:22 pm

savagecheater wrote:
Gamecubesupreme wrote:
Helmholtz wrote:Invitee - implied or express invitation to enter and/or remain, mutual benefit, public or business invitee, duty to inspect land for danger, duty to make safe and warn of dangers that are actually or constructively known (although warning might not be enough), also typically imposes special duties such as duty to rescue while on premises.

Licensee - implied or express invitation to enter and/or remain, benefit primarily rests with guest, typically has to do with social guests (people visiting your home, etc), no duty to inspect, duty to make safe and warn of dangers that are actually or constructively known

Trespasser - no express or implied permission to enter and/or remain, basically the only duty is to not wantonly or willfully injure, although you'll run into exceptions to known trespassers, e.g., and may have to warn about artificial conditions on the land that could foreseeably injure, etc.

Also, keep in mind that some jurisdictions have done away with the invitee/licensee status and just impose a general duty of reasonable care to people on the premises with permission to be there (I think some states may have gotten rid of all three distinctions; it never came up in my class).

I don't really know if there are any tips other than just knowing it - it's not that difficult.

When you see a business customer or somebody who entered land that is generally held open to the public, think invitee and duty to inspect/warn/make safe
When you see a social guest, think licensee and duty to warn/make safe
When you see somebody with no permission to enter/remain, think trespasser and duty to not willfully/wantonly injure


That.

Also, Rowland v. Christian eliminated all three and simply impose a duty of care to warn everyone of possible dangers while Heinz v. Webster County abolished distinction between licensee and invitee.

Not sure about which states follow which though.


question re: wild animals and trespassers - typically you don't have a duty of care to trespasser (rowland is reasonable care, which means LOLCONTEXTSENSITIVE), but wild animals means strict liability so duty's out the door.

What if you own a large expanse of property (think wooded area in....vermont) and you are aware that in the confines of your territory, as large as it is, wild animals like wolves and bears exist.

How to treat this?




it is a duty to warn of hidden dangers or dangers that the other person reasonably shouldn't have known. so you dont have to warn "hey, don't fall down the stairs." on that same idea, if it is reasonable for people to expect bears and wolves, there isn't a duty to warn. maybe you would need to warn if they were visiting from hawaii, or some warm wolfless place. but in general, duty to warn of known, hidden dangers.

savagecheater
Posts: 243
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby savagecheater » Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:32 pm

Zoos are exempt from the SL tag, but what about circuses or things like SeaWorld?

User avatar
Cosmo Kramer
Posts: 141
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 12:11 am

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby Cosmo Kramer » Fri Dec 17, 2010 12:37 pm

savagecheater wrote:Zoos are exempt from the SL tag, but what about circuses or things like SeaWorld?


business practice exception. They're in a business that inherently creates a risk of their animals going buck wild so they have to reasonably protect from those dangers.

irish017
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 1:19 pm

Re: Licensee v Invitee v Trespasser

Postby irish017 » Fri Dec 17, 2010 3:51 pm

There is a good chance making this thread in the last throes of studying saved my life. Duty to invitee was the major issue in one of my essay questions. Mr. Postman!




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: accessislife, Google Adsense [Bot], navykev and 11 guests