what standard of duty does a landowner owe to a trespasser

Topic:
LIABILITY (Constabulary); TRESPASSING; Offense; Real Property;
Location:
LIABILITY, LEGAL;
Scope:
Courtroom Cases; Connecticut laws/regulations;

March 27, 2002		2002-R-0365
TRESPASSERS, INVITEES, AND LICENSEES ON Individual Property
By: Christopher Reinhart, Acquaintance Attorney

You asked about the rights of a trespasser, invitee, or licensee on private property.

SUMMARY

A possessor of country owes each person who enters his land a certain duty of care based on the person ' due south status. The legal significance is that a possessor of land has the duty to an guest to inspect the premises for hidden defects and to repair or erect safeguards, if necessary, to make the premises reasonably safe. He has no duty to inspect or to repair or cock safeguards for licensees. But he is liable if he knows of a status, realizes it involves unreasonable risk, has reason to believe the licensee volition not find information technology, and he permits the licensee to enter or remain without alert or making the status reasonably safe.

By and large, an possessor owes trespassers no duty of care because he has no reason to expect them to be on his belongings. Therefore, he does not have to warn or protect them from potentially harmful conditions on the property.

However, an exception applies if a holding owner knows, or has reason to anticipate, that children volition trespass on his country. In this instance, a special duty arises and the owner must take steps to protect children from whatever of the property ' s unsafe conditions. This can exist done by taking reasonable steps to eliminate the condition or by otherwise keeping children away from it.

Statutes besides provide criminal penalties and fines for trespassing in certain circumstances.

DUTY OWED TO TRESPASSER

In Connecticut, the following rules utilise to a possessor of land with respect to a trespasser.

1. He may not intentionally harm the trespasser or lay a trap for him.

2. The trespasser is entitled to due care afterwards his presence is really known.

3. In that location is no duty owed regarding the condition of the premises.

four. The possessor of land has no duty to trespassers if he is engaged in a dangerous activity until the person ' s presence is know.

five. The owner of land has no duty to warn trespassers of dangerous hidden conditions (Conn. Law of Torts, � 47).

Duty Owed to Trespassing Children

Connecticut ' southward appellate courts accept adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts dominion regarding the duty of a holding owner to trespassing children (Duggan v. Esposito, 178 Conn. 156 (1979), Neal v. Shiels, Inc., 166 Conn. iii (1974), Greene five. DiFazio, 148 Conn. 419 (1961), Wolfe v. Rehbein, 123 Conn. 110 (1937), Yeske v. Avon Old Farms Schoolhouse, Inc., 1 Conn. App. 195 (1984)).

Under this rule, if an owner knows or has reason to know that children volition be on his belongings, he has the duty to protect them from injury past either fixing the harmful condition or ensuring that the children will not have admission to that function of the belongings.

The rule states that a possessor of land is liable for damage to trespassing children acquired by an bogus condition on the state if (1) the owner knows or has reason to know that children are probable to trespass in that place, (two) the condition is one the possessor knows or has reason to know and should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to children, (3) the children because of their youth practice not discover the condition or realize the run a risk, (4) the utility of maintaining the status and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight compared with the run a risk to children involved, and (v) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise protect children (Restatement (2nd), 2 Torts 339).

Trespass Crimes and Infractions

A person commits first degree criminal trespass when (ane) he enters or remains in a building or any other bounds subsequently the owner or an authorized person personally communicates an order to leave or not enter and (two) he knows that he is non licensed or privileged to be in that location. This criminal offense too applies to entering or remaining at a identify in violation of a retraining or protective gild. This is a grade A misdemeanor punishable by upwards to one year in prison, a fine of upwards to $2,000, or both (CGS � 53a-107).

A person commits 2nd caste criminal trespass when he enters or remains in a building knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do and then. This is a class B misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison house, a fine of upwardly to $1,000, or both (CGS � 53a-108).

A person commits third caste criminal trespass when, knowing he is non licensed or privileged to practise so, he enters or remains in whatever bounds for hunting, trapping, or fishing or enters or remains in premises that are posted in a style prescribed past law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders or that are fenced or enclosed to exclude intruders. This also applies to state lands well-nigh state institutions. This is a class C misdemeanor punishable by up to three months in prison house, a fine of up to $500, or both (CGS � 53a-109).

Information technology is a defense to these crimes if (1) the edifice was abandoned, (2) the premises at the time of entry were open up to the public and the person complied with all lawful conditions on access and remaining on the premises, or (3) the person reasonably believed that the owner (or someone else with the power to practise and so) would have or did license him to enter or remain on the premises (CGS � 53a-110).

A person commits simple trespass if, knowing he is not licensed or privileged to practise and so, he enters premises without intent to harm any belongings. This is an infraction punishable by a fine, currently $77 plus

costs and fees if paid by postal service (CGS � 53a-110a). A separate infraction covers trespass on railroad property when a person enters or remains on the property without lawful authorisation or consent of the railroad carrier. This is currently a $121 fine plus costs and fees if paid by mail service (CGS � 53a-110d).

DUTY OWED TO A LICENSEE

A licensee is someone privileged to enter or remain on state because the possessor consents to it, either by invitation or permission (Salaman v. Waterbury, 246 Conn. 298 (1998)). In Connecticut, the following rules apply to a owner of country with respect to licensees.

one. He may not intentionally harm the licensee or lay a trap for him.

2. The licensee is entitled to due intendance afterwards his presence is actually or constructively known.

3. In that location is no liability owed to the licensee for the obvious condition of the premises simply conditions that may be obvious in the daytime may go concealed at nighttime.

4. The owner of country has a duty to picket out for licensees or tolerated intruders if he is engaged in a dangerous activity.

5. The possessor of land must warn licensees and tolerated intruders of unsafe hidden hazards he actually knows about (Conn. Law of Torts, � 48).

An possessor or occupier of land is subject to liability to a licensee for injuries sustained from a natural or artificial condition if he (one) knows of the condition, (2) realizes information technology involves an unreasonable risk, (3) has reason to believe the licensee will non find the condition or risk, and (4) permits the licensee to enter or remain on the premises without exercising reasonable care to make the condition reasonably safe or warn the licensee of the condition and the risk (Laube v. Stevenson, 137 Conn. 469 (1951)). Certain statutes grant immunity, such as when state is made available for recreational employ (see CGS � 52-557f et seq.).

DUTY OWED TO INVITEES

Invitees are generally people who come up on land for a business purpose to the do good of the land owner or to the common benefit of the visitor and land possessor. The Connecticut Supreme Courtroom described three types of invitees.

i. A public invitee is someone invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.

2. A concern invitee is someone invited to enter or remain on country for a purpose directly or indirectly continued with business dealing with the possessor of state.

3. A social guest is someone who is owed the same standard of intendance equally a business invitee (CGS � 52-557a). The stardom between an invitee and a licensee depends largely on whether the visitor received an invitation, as opposed to permission, to enter or remain on the country. Although an invitation does not plant the condition of an invitee, it is essential to information technology (Restatement (Second), 2 Torts � 332 Comment B, Corcoran five. Jacovino, 161 Conn. 462, (1971)).

The possessor of land owes an guest all the duties that he owes to a licensee and as well: (1) the duty to inspect the bounds and erect safeguards, if necessary, to render the premises reasonably safe and (2) he has liability for defects that would usually be discoverable by a reasonable inspection and he has the duty to give a proper warning. Merely he is not liable to anyone for unknown latent defects, that could not be discovered past the exercise of reasonable care (Conn. Police force of Torts, � 49).

Even if he is an invitee, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had notice, bodily or effective, of the specific defective condition that caused the injury, and that the status existed for a sufficient length of time to allow the possessor, in the exercise of reasonable care, an opportunity to discover it and gear up it or warn of its presence (Monahan v. Montgomery, 153 Conn. 386). The owner of country is non liable for hazards that could not have been discovered or anticipated (Conn. Law of Torts, � 49).

CR:eh

plumleystriandly.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-R-0365.htm

Share this post