|

February 20, 2017

 Status of the Classification System

 Summary: Premises liability is a legal concept that generally comes into play in personal injury cases where the injury is caused by an unsafe or defective condition on the insureds property. In general a property owner must use reasonable care in connection with their property, and a failure to do so may lead to a premises liability claim against the property owner. Following is a brief explanation of the traditional classification system.

 One important factor in determining the premises liability of a landowner to those who are injured on his property is knowing the landowner's duty and his relationship to the injured party. Under the traditional classification system, the injured party would fall into one of three categories: invitee, licensee, or trespasser. An invitee is someone who has the landowners express or implied permission to enter onto the property. Traditionally, the landowner owed an invitee a duty of reasonable care to keep the property reasonably safe. A licensee is someone who has the landowner's express or implied permission to enter the property, but who is entering the property for his own benefit, such as a salesman. Traditionally, the landowner owed the licensee a lesser duty than that owed to an invitee; a mere duty to warn of a dangerous condition that created an unreasonable risk of harm if the landowner knew about the condition and the licensee was not likely to discover the condition. A trespasser is someone who does not have the necessary permission or authority to be on a specific piece of property. Traditionally, a landowner owed no duty to a trespasser unless that trespasser was a child, in which case the landowner owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to a child caused by an artificial condition on the land. Examples of artificial conditions include swimming pools and trampolines.

 The rules regarding the traditional classification vary greatly by state. The following list is a brief state-by-state overview of the status of the traditional classification system.

 Alabama: Retains traditional classification system. McMullan v. Butler, 346 So.2d 950 (Ala. 1977).

 Alaska: Abolished traditional classification system. Webb v. City and Borough of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1977). Alaska Stat. Ann. §09.65.200. (Supersedes case law in part, but does not change the status of Alaska's classification system.).

 Arizona: Retains traditional classification system. Nicoletti v. Westcor, Inc., 639 P.2d 330 (Ariz. 1982).

 Arkansas: Retains traditional classification system. Baldwin by Baldwin v. Mosley, 748 S.W.2d 146 (Ark. 1988).

 California:  Abolished traditional classification system. Rowland v. Christian, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97 (1968). Cal. Civ. Code §847 states “A property owner is not liable to any person for injury or death that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of any felonies by the injured or deceased person.”

 Colorado: Retains a form of traditional classification system. Colo. Rev. Stat. §13-21-115.

 Connecticut: Retains traditional classification system. Morin v. Bell Court Condo Ass'n, 612 A.2d 1197 (Conn. 1992). C.G.S.A. § 52-557a.

 Delaware: Retains traditional classification system. Bailey v. Pennington, 406 A.2d 44 (Del. 1979). Del. Code Ann. tit. 25, §1501. (No person who enters onto premises owned by another person, either as guest without payment or a trespasser, shall have a cause of action against the owner for any injuries sustained while on the premises unless the accident was intentional by the owner or caused by willful or wanton disregard of the rights of others.)

 District of Columbia: Abolished traditional classification system. Smith v. Arbaugh's Restaurant, Inc., 469 F.2d 97 (D.C. Cir. 1972).

 Florida: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Wood v. Camp, 284 So.2d 691 (Fla. 1973).

 Georgia: Retains traditional classification system. Epps v. Chattahoochee Brick Co., 231 S.E.2d 443 (Ga. 1976). Ga. Code Ann., § 51-3-1.

 Hawaii: Abolished traditional classification system. Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu, 452 P.2d 445 (Haw. 1969). HRS § 521-45.

 Idaho: Retains traditional classification system. Mooney v. Robinson, 471 P.2d 63 (Idaho 1970).

 Illinois: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. 740 ILCS §§130/2, 130/3.

 Indiana: Retains traditional classification system. Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991). IC 14-22-10-2.

 Iowa: Retains traditional classification system. Champlin v. Walker, 249 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 1977).

 Kansas: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Jones v. Hansen, 867 P.2d 303 (Kan. 1994).

 Kentucky: Retains traditional classification system. Kirschner v. Louisville Gas & Elec. Co., 743 S.W.2d 840 (Ky. 1988).

 Louisiana: Abolished traditional classification system. Cates v. Beauregard Elec. Coop., Inc., 328 So.2d 367 (La. 1976). LSA-C.C. Art. 660.

 Maine: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Poulin v. Colby College, 402 A.2d 846 (Me. 1979).

 Maryland: Retains traditional classification system. Sherman v. Suburban Trust Co., 384 A.2d 76 (Md. 1978).

 Massachusetts: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Mounsey v. Ellard, 297 N.E.2d 43 (Mass. 1973).

 Michigan: Retains traditional classification system. Doran v. Combs, 354 N.W.2d 804 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

 Minnesota: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Peterson v. Balach, 199 N.W.2d 639 (Minn. 1972).

 Mississippi: Retains traditional classification system. Astleford v. Milner Enterprises, Inc., 233 So.2d 524 (Miss. 1970).

 Missouri: Retains traditional classification system. Carter v. Kinney, 896 S.W.2d 926 (Mo. 1995).

 Montana: Abolished traditional classification system. Limberhand v. Big Ditch Co., 706 P.2d 491 (Mont. 1985).

 Nebraska: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Heins v. Webster County, 552 N.W.2d 51 (Neb. 1996).

 Nevada: Abolished traditional classification system. Moody v. Manny's Auto Repair, 871 P.2d 935 (Nev. 1994).

 New Hampshire: Abolished traditional classification system. Ouellette v. Blanchard, 364 A.2d 631 (N.H. 1976).

 New Jersey: Retains traditional classification system. LSA-C.C. Art. 660 Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 599 A.2d 924 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 1991). N.J.S.A. 2A:42A-4.

 New Mexico: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Ford v. Board of County Comm'rs, 879 P.2d 766 (N.M. 1994).

 New York: Abolished traditional classification system. Basso v. Miller, 386 N.Y.S.2d 564 (1976). McKinney's General Obligations Law § 9-103.

 North Carolina: Abolished traditional classification system. Nelson v. Freeland, 507 S.E.2d 882 (N.C. 1998).

 North Dakota: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. O'Leary v. Coenen, 251 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1977).

 Ohio: Retains traditional classification system. DiGildo v. Caponi, 247 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio 1969).

 Oklahoma: Retains traditional classification system. Sutherland v. Saint Francis Hosp., Inc., 595 P.2d 780 (Okla. 1979). 76 Okl. St. Ann. § 80.

 Oregon: Retains traditional classification system. Thompson v. Klimp, 789 P.2d 696 (Or. App. 1990). O.R.S. § 105.682.

 Pennsylvania: Retains traditional classification system. Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983).

 Rhode Island: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Tantimonico v. Allendale Mut. Ins. Co., 637 A.2d 1056 (R.I. 1994).

 South Carolina: Retains traditional classification system. Hoover v. Broome, 479 S.E.2d 62 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996).

 South Dakota: Retains traditional classification system. Underberg v. Cain, 348 N.W.2d 145 (S.D 1984).

 Tennessee: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Hudson v. Gaitan, 675 S.W.2d 699 (Tenn. 1984). V.T.C.A., Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 75.002.

 Texas: Retains traditional classification system. Buchholz v. Steitz, 463 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. App. 1971).

 Utah: Retains traditional classification system. Tjas v. Proctor, 591 P.2d 438 (Utah 1979).

 Vermont: Retains traditional classification system to some extent. Cameron v. Abatiell, 241 A.2d 310 (Vt. 1968). Reasonable care required “under all circumstances.” Demag v. Better Power Equip., Inc., 2014 VT 78, 102 A.3d 1101 (Vt. 2014).

 Virginia: Retains traditional classification system. Tate v. Rice, 315 S.E.2d 385 (Va. 1984).

 Washington: Retains traditional classification system. Younce v. Ferguson, 724 P.2d 991 (Wash. 1986).

 West Virginia: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Mallet v. Pickens, 522 S.E.2d 436 (W. Va. 1999).

 Wisconsin: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Antoniewicz v. Reszcynski, 236 N.W.2d 1 (Wis. 1975).

 Wyoming: Abolished traditional classification system for invitees and licensees but retains distinction for trespassers. Clarke v. Beckwith, 858 P.2d 293 (Wyo. 1993).

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis