Rowland v. Christian case brief summary
Facts: Summary Judgement for the defendant.
P was a social guest in defendant’s apartment. While he was using the bathroom, he was injured from the handle of a water faucet which the defendant had known but did not say anything to P as to its condition.
Issue: Where the occupier of land is aware of a concealed condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm to those coming in contact with it in the absence of precautions and is aware that a person on the premises is about to come in contact with it, the failure to warn or to repair the condition constitutes negligence.
Rule: Where the occupier of land is aware of a concealed condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm to those coming in contact with it in the absence of precautions and is aware that a person on the premises is about to come in contact with it, the failure to warn or to repair the condition constitutes negligence for his breach of duty.
Analysis: The common law imposes on owners and occupiers of land a single duty of reasonable care in all circumstances.
Liability should not be based upon the status of whether the injured party is a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.
The factors involved with each do not reflect what factors should be used to determine liability. To focus on that status of the injured party in that matter to determine whether the landowner has a duty of care is contrary to our modern social mores and values.
Failure to warn a guest or licensee of a potentially dangerous situation, whether landowner or possessor, is to subject that a party to an unreasonable risk of harm when the concealed condition is known or likely to be known by the landowner or possessor.
C: reversed
Co: still good law in CA
Facts: Summary Judgement for the defendant.
P was a social guest in defendant’s apartment. While he was using the bathroom, he was injured from the handle of a water faucet which the defendant had known but did not say anything to P as to its condition.
Issue: Where the occupier of land is aware of a concealed condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm to those coming in contact with it in the absence of precautions and is aware that a person on the premises is about to come in contact with it, the failure to warn or to repair the condition constitutes negligence.
Rule: Where the occupier of land is aware of a concealed condition involving an unreasonable risk of harm to those coming in contact with it in the absence of precautions and is aware that a person on the premises is about to come in contact with it, the failure to warn or to repair the condition constitutes negligence for his breach of duty.
Analysis: The common law imposes on owners and occupiers of land a single duty of reasonable care in all circumstances.
Liability should not be based upon the status of whether the injured party is a trespasser, licensee, or invitee.
The factors involved with each do not reflect what factors should be used to determine liability. To focus on that status of the injured party in that matter to determine whether the landowner has a duty of care is contrary to our modern social mores and values.
Failure to warn a guest or licensee of a potentially dangerous situation, whether landowner or possessor, is to subject that a party to an unreasonable risk of harm when the concealed condition is known or likely to be known by the landowner or possessor.
C: reversed
Co: still good law in CA
Support us by:
Checking out our store on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com
No comments:
Post a Comment