Discussion 1: Rights and Responsibilities of Land Owners”
- PartA: The general rule is that a landowner can be held liable to atrespasser only for intentional torts or for reckless or wanton conduct. Nolandowner will be liable to a trespasser for mere negligence, which is a failureto use reasonable care.State whether or not you agree with the fact thatmany states require a landowner to use reasonable care in order to protectdiscovered trespassers, frequent trespassers, or tolerated trespassers frominjuries caused by either the landowners’ activities or by artificial conditionson the land. Support your response.
- PartB: In Knorpp vs. Hale, at 981 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. App. 1998) and atp. 480 in textbook, the court lays out the duties to both a licensee and aninvitee. Use this analysis to determine whether or not a church member whoslipped and fell in the church basement fellowship hall and injured herselfwould be considered a licensee or an invitee.What duty of care would shebe owed? Would your conclusion change if the member had sung in the church choirthat morning, before she fell?
If you need help with completing discussions please click here for more information.
“Discussion 2: Special Duties – Obligations toRescuers”
- 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 asituation of peril has a duty to an individual who attempts a rescue in responseto that situation. For example, in McCoy, the plaintiff was able to recover froma manufacturer of a vehicle where a car accident was caused by defects in thevehicle. The plaintiff was not involved in the accident but stopped to assist;in the process, McCoy was struck by a hit-and-run vehicle andinjured.Determine if it violates normal notions of fairness to holdsomeone responsible for injuries caused to a rescuer when the rescuer choseto undertake the rescue.
Does the foreseeability of the need forrescue create a duty from Suzuki to the injured plaintiff?