Top Law Schools

I can never remember the difference between Owners duties to anticipated trespassors/inviteess + licensees. Anything would help

not sure this is very helpful but it memorizing the title lines (invitee--inspect/protect) might be a simplistic way of keeping them straight.

duty of care to trespassers: willful/wanton
Owners owe no duty of care to undiscovered trespassers except to avoid willful/wanton conduct (and are SL for the harms of a vicious guard dog)
however a discovered trespasser is owed the same duty of care as an licensee

duty of care to licensee/discovered trespassers: duty to warn
duty to warn of concealed dangers that landowner knows about or should know (think about a pipe sticking out of the ground--its not concealed, so no duty to warn as its obvious, as compared to quicksand covered by grass or something.)

duty of care to invitee: duty to inspect/protect
landowners have to look for unreasonably dangerous conditions and protect invitees from them

so you go from no duty, to warning those you've given permission to, to protecting people you're doing business with.

Thank you!

emwallen wrote:not sure this is very helpful but it memorizing the title lines (invitee--inspect/protect) might be a simplistic way of keeping them straight.

Owners owe no duty of care to undiscovered trespassers except to avoid willful/wanton conduct (and are SL for the harms of a vicious guard dog)
however a discovered trespasser is owed the same duty of care as an licensee

duty of care to licensee/discovered trespassers: duty to warn
duty to warn of concealed dangers that landowner knows about or should know (think about a pipe sticking out of the ground--its not concealed, so no duty to warn as its obvious, as compared to quicksand covered by grass or something.)

I'm not sure I agree that a discovered trespasser is owed the same duty of care as a licensee.

for a discovered trespasser, I think HACK. Duty to warn/make safe for highly dangerous artificial concealed and known dangers.

For a licensee, I agree, it's just the CK in hack. Duty to warn or make safe concealed and known dangers, whether they are highly dangerous and artificial or not.

Skool wrote:

emwallen wrote:not sure this is very helpful but it memorizing the title lines (invitee--inspect/protect) might be a simplistic way of keeping them straight.

Owners owe no duty of care to undiscovered trespassers except to avoid willful/wanton conduct (and are SL for the harms of a vicious guard dog)
however a discovered trespasser is owed the same duty of care as an licensee

duty of care to licensee/discovered trespassers: duty to warn
duty to warn of concealed dangers that landowner knows about or should know (think about a pipe sticking out of the ground--its not concealed, so no duty to warn as its obvious, as compared to quicksand covered by grass or something.)

I'm not sure I agree that a discovered trespasser is owed the same duty of care as a licensee.

for a discovered trespasser, I think HACK. Duty to warn/make safe for highly dangerous artificial concealed and known dangers.

For a licensee, I agree, it's just the CK in hack. Duty to warn or make safe concealed and known dangers, whether they are highly dangerous and artificial or not.

Yeah, known trespassers don't fall under licensees--only difference between UNKNOWN trespassers and KNOWN/ANTICIPATED trespassers is that UKNOWN = NO DUTY. Known/anticipated trespassers are owed a duty, but just the rock bottom one of getting warned of things that the landowner KNOWS about + is ARTIFICIAL/MANMADE.