## Facts

- Ice Caves Mountain, Inc. operated a scenic tourist park on land leased from the Village of Ellenville and charged admission during posted daytime hours.
- After a visitor fell into a deep crevice, Stephen Basso and William A. Miller traveled by Miller’s motorcycle to assist in the rescue.
- Basso claimed Miller spoke to a gate attendant and then drove through a raised barrier to the parking area; a park employee testified the gate was down and locked and that Miller entered despite instructions.
- Following the rescue, Basso rode as Miller’s passenger while they exited on the park road at night.
- Near a curve, the motorcycle struck a series of holes, went out of control, and threw both riders onto rocks, injuring Basso.
- Basso and Miller were familiar with the property and each held a season pass.

## Issues

1. Whether a landowner/occupier’s duty in premises liability should depend on the entrant’s status as trespasser, licensee, or invitee, or instead be governed by a single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances.
2. Whether Basso was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, requiring dismissal of the claim against Miller, due to an asserted statutory violation governing motorcycle passenger seating and footrests.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals abolished the status-based categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee for New York premises-liability duty analysis.
- The Court adopted a single duty: landowners/occupiers must act with reasonable care under the circumstances, with foreseeability serving as a measure of liability.
- The judgment against Ice Caves was affirmed; the evidence permitted a jury finding that the park failed to maintain a reasonably safe roadway for foreseeable vehicular use.
- The Court declined to dismiss the claim against Miller; the alleged statutory violation by Basso did not establish contributory negligence as a matter of law because causation remained a jury question.

## Legal Principles

- In New York premises liability, duty is defined by reasonable care under all the circumstances, not by rigid entrant-status labels.
- Foreseeability of the plaintiff’s presence and of the risk of harm informs the scope of the landowner/occupier’s duty.
- The reasonableness inquiry may consider the likelihood and severity of injury and the burden of avoiding the risk.
- A statutory violation may be evidence of negligence, but it does not bar recovery as a matter of law unless it is shown to be a proximate cause of the injury.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals replaced New York’s invitee/licensee/trespasser framework with a unified reasonable-care standard grounded in foreseeability, affirmed the jury’s premises-liability finding against the park operator, and held that alleged statutory noncompliance by a motorcycle passenger presented a causation question for the jury rather than an automatic defense.


Basso v. Miller, 40 N.Y.2d 233 (N.Y. 1976)