Negligence – Prima Facie Case
• D owed P a Legal Duty
• Breach of Duty
• Actual Damages
• Factual Cause
• Proximate Cause
Property Owners:
Ordinary Care vs. Willful, Wanton, Reckless
• Ordinary Care
–
–
–
–
Duty to inspect property
Duty to eliminate/minimize hazards
Duty to warn
Duty to prevent dangers
• Refrain from Willful, Wanton, Reckless Conduct
– Intentionally injure
– Consciously disregard known risk/indifferent to risk created
– No duty
Inspect property
Eliminate/minimize hazard
Warn
Prevent dangers
*Unless willful, wanton, or reckless
•
•
•
•
Landowners – Common Law Duty of Care
• Invitees:
– Who are they:
• Invited by landowner for economic purpose/purpose beneficial to D, or
• Premises open to general public
– Standard of care: Duty of ordinary care
• Trespasser:
– Who are they: Not invited onto property and no legal right to be there
– Standard of care:
• General duty = refrain from willful, wanton or reckless conduct
• Duty ordinary care
– Once discover (or had reason to know of) trespasser’s presence and in peril
– When landowner engaged in activity (majority of jurisdictions)
– Landowner aware trespassers frequent property (some jurisdictions)
• Licensee:
– Who are they: Everyone else (including social guests)
– Standard of care: Same as duty of care owed trespasser
Landowners – Duty of Care
Standard of
Care
Common Law
Modified Common Law
Uniform
Standard
Ordinary
Care
Invitee
Trespasser/licensee if
• (1) Know of
presence/reason
to know of their
presence, and
• (2) In peril/about
to encounter
danger
Invitee
Invitee
Trespasser/licensee if
Licensee
• (1) Know of
Trespasser
presence/reason to know of
their presence, and
• (2) In peril/about to
encounter danger
All licensees [or social guests
only]
Willfull,
Wanton,
Reckless
Licensee &
Trespasser (general)
Trespasser (general)
[Licensees other than social
guests]
Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
Possessor of land liable for child’s physical harm caused
by artificial condition upon land if:
a) D knows/reason to know children likely trespass in
place where condition exists
b) D knows/reason to know condition poses
unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm
to children
c) Children unlikely discover the condition or realize
the risk
d) Utility of condition and burden of eliminating it
slight compared to reducing risk to children
e) D fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the
danger or otherwise protect the children
Hypo
Defendant owns a home goods store. Aisle 5
contains a large pillar in the middle of the aisle.
Plaintiff was walking down aisle 5 carrying a
large mirror she intended to purchase. Plaintiff
did not see the pillar and walked into it, causing
the mirror to shatter. She suffered severe cuts
and bruises. Will she prevail in her negligence
suit against the Defendant?