Friday, October 10, 2014

Rowland v. Christian case brief summary


Rowland v. Christian case brief summary

F: SJ for D
P was a social guest in D’s apartment. While he was using the bathroom, he was injured from handle of water faucet which D had known, but did not say anything to P as to its condition. 


I: 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.

R: 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. 


A: 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 unreasonably 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

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.