102. What action should the court take?

The jurisdiction has abolished intra-family immunity and applies the traditional rules of landowner liability.

The grandfather brought an action against his son to recover for his injuries, and both the grandfather and the son have moved for directed verdicts as to liability.

While visiting at his son's home, a grandfather tripped on a toy left on the floor by his four-year- old grandson. The grandfather fell and was severely injured. The grandfather regularly visited his son's home and was aware that the grandson routinely left toys scattered about the house. The son had never warned the grandfather to look out for toys.

Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury based on negligence
Deny both motions and submit the case to the jury based on strict liability
Grant the grandfather’s motion, because the son is liable as a matter of law for failing to warn about the risk of toys being left on the floor
Grant the son’s motion, because the son had no duty to warn that the grandson might leave toys on the floor

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

Social guests and visiting family normally fall in the «licensee» category of the land possessor hierarchy. A social guest is not an «invitee» merely because the guest is «invited» to the home. Instead, the classic examples of an invitee are business customers or individuals in a public area for the purpose that area is held open to the public (e.g., a park-goer in a park). In addition to a land possessor's normal duty to exercise reasonable care as to any activities of the land possessor on his or her property, the land possessor also owes a duty to licensees to make safe any (i) known; (ii) nonobvious; (iii) dangerous; (iv) artificial; or (v) natural conditions on the property. The key element for licensees is «known» — the land possessor must know of the hazard. One way a land possessor can make safe the hazard is by warning the plaintiff of the hazard, so long as that warning is sufficient to make it safe (e.g., a sign the person cannot see until they succumb to the hazard is insufficient).

D is correct. Here, there are no facts stating the son knew of the toy the grandfather slipped on, and the facts further indicate that the grandfather already knew about the hazard. Nor are there any facts indicating it was a hazard the grandfather could not discover easily. Thus, the facts indicate the son did not breach a duty owed to the grandfather, and this answer is correct.

A is incorrect. The grandfather has not provided sufficient evidence to send this case to the jury. As described above, there are no facts showing that the son breached a duty to the grandfather because (i) the grandfather knew of the hazard; (ii) there is no evidence the son knew of the toys (which might have been left their seconds earlier — the grandfather has provided no evidence concerning this); and (iii) the hazard appears to have been obvious such that the grandfather could easily have discovered it.

B is incorrect. Strict liability normally does not apply to licensees — it normally does not apply even for the higher category of invitees absent additional facts that, on their own, trigger strict liability (such as the land possessor engaging in abnormally dangerous activities like blasting, etc.).

C is incorrect. As described above, these are not facts that create liability for the son. The grandfather was already aware of the dangerous condition, the condition was one the grandfather could easily discover, and there are no facts indicating the son knew of the particular hazard.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

102. What action should the court take?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired