Discussion 1: Rights and Responsibilities of Land Owners, law homework help

Discussion 1: Rights and Responsibilities of Land Owners”

• Part
  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.

• Part
  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
Rescuers”

• 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
  injured.

  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?