Lizard wrote:2807 wrote:Lizard wrote:Lizard wrote:Premises Liability Questions:
If a business establishment has a sign saying "Restroom for Customers Only" is a non-customer a trespasser if she used the bathroom? How about if she appears to be leaving the establishment--has her entire stay there been a trespass, or only her time in the bathroom?
So I'm confused about the analysis for this question. Let's say it's a restaurant with a sign saying Restroom for Customers Only. Does this mean the person is ONLY a trespasser in the restroom, but a licensee/invitee (depending on jurisdiction) in the rest of the restaurant?
What are the consequences if someone commits an intentional tort against them in the restroom vs. the rest of the restaurant? My guess is that for intentional torts, their trespasser status is irrelevant?
Q1: Yes, if you exceed the scope of your license or invite = you are a trespasser. This was actually tested on the CA bar not so long ago. (A pool party where the kids were told to go inside, pool closed now, and then a kid snuck back out and fell in the pool. He was a trespasser at that point)
Q2: Intentional tort against someone would just be the tort analysis, and the premise liability likely not come into play. Premise liability is only for static elements of the property, NOT for actions or activity on the property. (that can be a trick in the questions, so watch for that).
Q1: This means that the person would only be a trespasser in the bathroom, but once leaving the bathroom, they would be licensee/invitee in the rest of the establishment? After leaving the restroom, does that mean that the owner of the establishment would not have a cause of action against the trespasser? Trespassing=strict liability, does this mean that the owner could file a claim against the person for "trespassing" and using the bathroom? How about for property (toilet paper & wear and tear on bathroom--crazy and farfetched i know, but whatever)?
The problem you are creating is still going to hinge on the fact pattern and the definition of "customer." If this hypothetical person is a "customer" then = no trespass. Period.
If, somehow, the facts show that you can establish an argument that the person is capable of entering the store, and go to the restroom, without being a customer, then they are a trespasser the entire time (they are not a licensee or invitee either, right?).. But, if the shop is open to the public, then you are back to needing to use facts to show this person was not ever a customer, and therefore a trespasser at all times. That will need facts, becasue it is hard to establish otherwise. (possibly just by walking into a store open to the public.. you suffice as a customer?)<-- you would need to solve that.
Technically, if a person exceeds the scope of their permission to be on the premise, then they are a trespasser in that exceeded capacity and the duty of the owner shifts accordingly.
Yes, if they are a trespasser then you would have a claim for "conversion" of that toilet paper. Sheesh. Yep.
You would likely have a few issue statements (IRAC). One would deal with "whether X was a trespasser at all times" and the other would be "whether X was only a trespasser in the bathroom" Just use facts and law to analyze both... thats all you can do. There are no answers... only analysis.
Your fact pattern would likely involve an injury to X somewhere in the store and the owner's duty to X at that exact location. That will help you in crafting the "issue statement" as a correct legal issue and NOT a lead-in sentence to what you intend to talk about.