Rowland v. Christian case brief
Facts: Plaintiff was a social guest in defendant’s apartment, when he went to use the bathroom he found a cracked handle of the water faucet. It broke and caused serious injuries. Defendant knew that it was broken and complained to manager of building but didn’t tell plaintiff.
Decision: Summary judgment for defendant reversed, plaintiff can go through with trial.
Reasoning: Thought that the common law determination of plaintiff’s status was wrong. Need to weigh factors of closeness of connection between injury and defendant’s conduct, moral blame attached to defendant’s conduct, policy of preventing future harm, and availability of any insurance. Therefore this should be used to determine whether there is any fault. A lot of courts decided that they will approach it on negligence claims. Focusing on what the status of plaintiff is does not make for a good way to determine duty because people rarely change their conduct based on such matters. Person on the land should have the right to know of the dangerous condition and to take special precautions.
Holding: Where occupier of land is aware of a concealed condition which has an unreasonable risk of harm to those coming in contact with it and is aware that a licensee is about to come in contact with it, the trier of fact can reasonably conclude whether or not a failure to warn or repair constitutes negligence.