Duties Owed & Attractive Nuisance

Case Discussion: Reference to a case involving a young girl falling from a balcony.
- Consideration whether the situation represents an invitee scenario due to the connection between a tenant (like Walmart) and a customer.
- Acknowledgment that the nature of the lease will influence the outcome of liability.
- Emphasis on the difficulty of distinguishing between duties owed to licensees and invitees.

Duty Definition: Important to identify what duty was owed and whether that duty was breached.
If a Plaintiff is a Licensee:
- Duty is to warn of hidden dangers.
- The question arises whether the danger (e.g., height of the railing) was known or hidden.
- In the railing example:
- Was the danger hidden? No, it was visible.
- Was the landlord aware of the railing's height? Yes, thus focusing on negligence for failing to provide sufficient safety measures (i.e., higher railing).
- Negligence Focus: Not merely warning, but equipping spaces appropriately when people are present.
- Example of a railing: The height must be reasonable, aligning with housing code requirements.
- Reasonableness Standard: Not only does it involve safety, but also what is customary and expected in residential settings.

Key Differences:
- Licensees are guests on property for their own purpose, lacking the same duty of inspection as invitees.
- Example: A guest stepping on a known mousetrap without a warning may claim negligence due to the hidden nature of the danger.
- Invitees are those who enter a property for mutually beneficial purposes.
- Duty of reasonable inspection is heightened for invitees.
Illustrative Example: A licensee being guided to a bathroom, falling through a creaky step.
- Discussion led to the issue of whether the homeowner knew or should have known about the danger of the third step.
- Duty of care remains linked to reasonable inspection.

General Principle: Duty to act reasonably under all circumstances.
- Applies widely across trespassers, licensees, and invitees.
- Distinction in duties relates to knowledge of the dangers on the property.
Trespassers: Will be discussed later; generally, less duty owed compared to licensees and invitees.

Example Bright Line: A person visiting a store (invitee) has a higher duty owed to them than social guests in a private home (licensee).
- Notable case law: Invitees have a right to expect reasonable safety and preventative measures can be argued for businesses.
Walmart Specifics:
- For businesses, if they know of dangerous conditions, reasonable actions must be undertaken to rectify them.
- Criteria for Liability:
- If the business knew of a danger or should have discovered it and failed to act, liability may follow.

Defined to protect children from dangers posed by hazardous materials, playing fields, swimming pools, etc.
Duty involves ensuring reasonable safety measures are in place, especially when children can reasonably be expected to be attracted to such conditions.

Public Invitees vs. Business Invitees:
- Rights and duties differ based on what they are on the property to do (i.e., social activity vs. for business).
Statutory Framework: Discusses how certain statutes may reinforce the obligation to ensure safety (e.g., fencing requirements around pools).

When involving machinery or hazardous materials, a more stringent duty exists including safety inspections compared to routine property management.
The court's perspective on whether the duty was breached given the existing conditions.

Discussion about possible defenses invoked against negligence claims.
- For example, whether the warning of danger was adequately presented or deemed reasonable under the circumstances.

Final Remarks: The practical implications of these discussions will surface in real-world applications and case studies that involve questions of negligence, liability, and duty of care in various contexts, whether private or business-related. Emphasis on understanding the nuances between a trespasser, licensee, and invitee and how the duties associated with each role differ markedly.