Discussion 1: Rights and Responsibilities of Land Owners, law homework help
Discussion 1: Rights and Responsibilities of Land Owners”
A: The general rule is that a landowner can be held liable to a
trespasser only for intentional torts or for reckless or wanton conduct. No
landowner will be liable to a trespasser for mere negligence, which is a failure
to use reasonable care.
State whether or not you agree with the fact that
many states require a landowner to use reasonable care in order to protect
discovered trespassers, frequent trespassers, or tolerated trespassers from
injuries caused by either the landowners’ activities or by artificial conditions
on the land. Support your response.
B: In Knorpp vs. Hale, at 981 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. App. 1998) and at
p. 480 in textbook, the court lays out the duties to both a licensee and an
invitee. Use this analysis to determine whether or not a church member who
slipped and fell in the church basement fellowship hall and injured herself
would be considered a licensee or an invitee.
What duty of care would she
be owed? Would your conclusion change if the member had sung in the church choir
that morning, before she fell?
If you need help with completing discussions please click here for more information.
[img alt=”” src=”https://www.studypool.com/images/ci/icons/generic_updown.gif”>
“Discussion 2: Special Duties – Obligations to
- The court in McCoy vs. American Suzuki Motor Corp. at 961 P. 2d 952 (Wash.
1998) and at p. 530 in your textbook, recognized that a person who creates a
situation of peril has a duty to an individual who attempts a rescue in response
to that situation. For example, in McCoy, the plaintiff was able to recover from
a manufacturer of a vehicle where a car accident was caused by defects in the
vehicle. The plaintiff was not involved in the accident but stopped to assist;
in the process, McCoy was struck by a hit-and-run vehicle and
Determine if it violates normal notions of fairness to hold
someone responsible for injuries caused to a rescuer when the rescuer chose
to undertake the rescue.
Does the foreseeability of the need for
rescue create a duty from Suzuki to the injured plaintiff?