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

Discussion 1: Rights and Responsibilities of Land Owners”

  • Part
    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
    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?

  • "Our Prices Start at $11.99. As Our First Client, Use Coupon Code GET15 to claim 15% Discount This Month!!":

    Get started