Mbe Florida -- Torts - Negligence -Duty -Land Ocuppiers

Front 1

Negligence: determining the duty of a land occupier

-- as a prelim matter, what two facts must be determined first?

Back 1

-- first, how did the entrant get hurt? by Condition or by Activity
-- second, what is the PF's legal status as an entrant? (e.g., trespasser, licensee, invitee)

Front 2

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- in determining how the PF got hurt, what are the two relevant categories?

Back 2

-- ACTIVITY: by an activity being conducted on the property
-- CONDITION: by an encounter with a hazardous condition on the property

Front 3

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants
-- what is the difference (by examples) between Activity and Condition?

Back 3

-- (A) on farm, DF operating a thresher, runs over PF
-- (A) at supermarket, DF employee runs into PF a shopping cart
-- (A) at home, DF briefly looks away while pouring coffee into PF's cup, scalding PF
-- (C) at home, PF walking up stairs, trips on loose carpet
-- (C) at market, PF hit in head by items falling off collapsing shelf
-- (C) on farm, wind causes dead tree limb fall on PF
-- (C) unlike activity, DF didn’t do anything, except fail to remedy (or warn)

Front 4

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants
-- what is the PF's legal status as an entrant onto land? (four possible categories)

Back 4

-- undiscovered trespasser
-- discovered trespasser
-- licensee
-- invitee

Front 5

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- describe the term "undiscovered trespasser"?
-- what is the FL definition

Back 5

-- person on land without permission
-- AND (MBE): land occupier does NOT know that the person is there
-- AND (FL): land occupier does NOT know person is there within 24hrs preceding accident

Front 6

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- what duty does the occupier owe to an "undiscovered trespasser"?

-- why does this legal consequence result?

Back 6

-- An occupier of land owes NO duty to an undiscovered trespasser -- whether as to activities or conditions
-- WHY? the undiscovered trespassers is Ms. Palsgraf, the surprise victim (where did you come from?!?)
-- therefore, undiscovered trespasser ALWAYS loses

Front 7

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

although land occupier has no duty to an "undiscovered trespasser", he can still get in trouble for his ...

Back 7

-- intentional torts;
-- e.g. land occupier sets up spring gun to protect land; liable to battery

Front 8

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- what is the FL definition of "discovered trespasser"?

Back 8

-- person on land without permission
-- AND (MBE): land occupier does knows that the person is there
-- AND (FL): land occupier detects person's physical presence within 24hrs preceding accident

Front 9

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- common MBE approach with respect to undiscovered / discovered trespassers

-- approach for FL essays

Back 9

-- X starts as an "undiscovered" but is "discovered" before his injury
-- after discovery, X would be owed the duty owed to discovered trespassers
-- FL: on discovery, trespasser would have 24 hours of "discovered" status; for accidents occurring after that 24 hour period, trespasser's entrant status would revert back to "undiscovered trespasser" (ie, NO duty)

Front 10

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- what type of person will be considered a discovered trespasser?

Back 10

-- anticipated trespasser
-- where there is a recurring occurrence of trespassers in a given area, those recurring trespassers are considered "discovered trespassers" (even though, in a given moment, you don't know if someone is there)
-- classic example: an oft-used short-cut over a private RR. ONCE the RR knows about the short-cut, then anyone using that short-cut is owed the same duty as owed to discovered (ie, known) trespassers

Front 11

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- what is the duty owed to discovered trespasser?

Back 11

-- Activities: ordinary duty of care (RPP UTC)
-- Conditions: duty to protect against known, man-made, death trap on the land
-- "known": land occupier had advance knowledge of hazard; no duty to inspect
-- "Man-made": artificial; no duty with respect to natural conditions
-- "death": man-made conditions that are Highly dangerous (kill; severe bodily injury)
-- "traps": hazard is concealed from trespasser

Front 12

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- what is an example of Duty / No Duty owed to discovered
trespasser?

Back 12

-- e.g., DUTY re: seemingly strong bridge over ravine that land occupier knows will collapse if an adult walks on
-- e.g., NO DUTY re: dead tree limbs; rock slides; quicksand (not man-made condition)
-- e.g., NO DUTY re: slippery mold on paved walkway (risk of slight injury only; twisted ankle, slight cut)

Front 13

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- describe the term "licensee"?

Back 13

-- social guests (comes onto land for own benefit)
-- performing minor services for the host does not make the entrant an invitee

Front 14

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- under FL law, describe the categories of entrants & treatment

Back 14

-- undiscovered trespasser; discovered trespasser: same as MBE, distinguishable via 24-hour rule
-- "uninvited licensees": entrants without express or implied invitation (e.g., girl scouts selling cookies; door-to-door sales people): treated same as discovered trespassers
-- "licensees by invitation": entrants with express or implied invitation: treated as invitees

Front 15

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- what is the duty owed to licensees?

Back 15

-- Activities: (SAME FOR ALL 4 CATEGORIES) ordinary duty of care (RPP UTC)
-- Conditions: duty to protect against ALL known traps on the land
-- "known": land occupier had advance knowledge of hazard; no duty to inspect
-- "traps": hazard is concealed from trespasser
-- ANY condition: not just man-made (e.g., loose carpet, quicksand, falling limbs)
-- ANY injury: big harm; small harm

Front 16

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- describe the term "invitee"?

Back 16

-- those who enter land that is "open to the public"
-- e.g., business; university; airport; hospital; public land
-- those who enter for a purpose connected with the business or other interest of the land occupier
-- e.g., repairman

Front 17

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- describe when someone can lose their "invitee" status

Back 17

-- by exceeding the scope of the invitation
-- e.g., Exxon customer leaves pumps & slips in grease pit inside gas station

Front 18

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- what is the duty owed to an invitee?

Back 18

-- Activities: (SAME FOR ALL 4 CATEGORIES) ordinary duty of care (RPP UTC)
-- Conditions: duty to protect against ALL known AND " reasonably knowable" traps on the land
-- "known": land occupier had advance knowledge of hazard
-- "knowable": could discover with reasonable inspection
-- "traps": hazard is concealed from trespasser

Front 19

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

-- describe the obligation to protect invitees against "knowable" traps

Back 19

-- those that land occupier could discover with reasonable inspection
-- NOT perfect inspection
-- NOT required to be an insurer, this isn't strict liability
-- a cost-benefit analysis (e.g., sandwich shop need not spend 1000s on inspection, but if look around & see loose light fixture, duty to secure light so that PF not hit on head)

Front 20

In dealing with land occupier problems, what is the overall approach in selecting the (one of eight) possible outcomes?

Back 20

eight outcomes: four entrants x two situations (condition or activity)
for undiscovered trespassers: no duty re: condition or activities; that's two
for activities for three remaining entrants: RPP UTC; that's three
for conditions for three remaining entrants: progressively more protection
-- discovered trespasser: protect from known, man-made, death traps
-- licensees: protect from all known traps
-- invitees: protect from known & reasonably knowable traps

Front 21

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

What is the special FLORIDA rule for CRIMINAL ENTRANTS?

Back 21

-- to a person attempting to commit a felony on the land
-- or to a person engaged in committing a felony on the land
-- a land occupier has NO duty (death, injury, damage)
-- thus, in FL, a land occupier has NO duty re: undiscovered trespassers OR re: persons committing (or attempting to commit) a felony

Front 22

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

For firefighters & police officers, what is their status as entrants -- MBE & Florida

Back 22

-- (MBE) considered licensee (guest): responding to emergency, t/f implied permission to enter your land
-- (FL) for non-trespassers, person is either uninvited licensee (treated same as discovered trespasser) or licensee by invitation (treated same as invitee; highest standard of care)

Front 23

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

In what circumstance does land occupier have NO duty to firefighters & police officers?

Back 23

-- with respect to injuries inherent in the risk of their job: NO DUTY of land occupier to protect
-- even if preceding cause was land occupier's negligence (e.g., smoking in bed)

Front 24

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

Describe land occupier's duty with respect to firefighters & police officers -- MBE & Florida

Back 24

-- MBE: licensee: duty to warn about any known traps (ie, any known, concealed conditions) (e.g., loose floor board on porch)
-- Florida: licensee by invitation = invitee; ie, duty to warn about known or reasonably knowable traps

Front 25

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

What is the special rule for "infant" trespassers

Back 25

-- e.g., kid who is 9-yo
-- entitled to reasonable standard of care; ie, the RPP UTC standard
-- issue: is there something on the land that attracts children?
-- if no lure, then perhaps can leave hazardous
-- if high probability that kids may trespass onto your land, then RPP would take preventive steps (put up fence; lock up hazards)

Front 26

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

In any case involving a hazardous condition, a person can satisfy his duty by ... (2)

Back 26

-- fix the condition; e.g., repair the loose carpeting
-- give a warning: "warnings defeat liability"
-- WHY? because all the duties to entrants relate to TRAPS (ie, concealed dangers), if warn people, then not a trap!!

Front 27

Negligence: duty of occupier of land with respect to entrants

When does a duty of warn not exist ? )

Back 27

-- where the danger is obvious
-- obvious is determined by all the circumstances
-- e.g., banana peel on floor may not be obvious where customer distracted by store's multiple displays