## Facts

- Nadine N. Jones was a social guest at Merida and Carl Hansen’s home, invited to play bridge.
- During the visit, Jones went to view artwork in an adjacent room that was dimly lit, with only a floor lamp turned on despite other available lighting.
- Jones moved close to the paintings to see them and did not ask where light switches were located.
- The stairwell in the room was partially screened by bookshelves placed to prevent inadvertent entry; paintings were hung above the stairwell.
- Jones fell down the stairs and suffered severe injuries; no prior stair injuries had occurred at the home.
- Jones sued, alleging that the lighting and artwork placement constituted wanton conduct and active negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff sufficiently preserved a request to change Kansas premises-liability law to impose a reasonable-care duty to social guests.
2. Whether Kansas should replace the status-based duty to licensees with a “reasonable care under all the circumstances” standard, and whether any change should apply to this case.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court reviewed the requested change in law despite limited presentation in the trial court’s written submissions.
- The court held that occupiers owe invitees and licensees the same duty: reasonable care under all the circumstances.
- The court retained the traditional rule for trespassers: a duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless injury.
- The court applied the new invitee/licensee rule prospectively only.
- Applying prior law to Jones (as a licensee), the court affirmed summary judgment for the Hansens because the record did not support willful, wanton, or reckless injury.

## Legal Principles

- In Kansas, the common-law classification of “licensee” no longer determines the duty owed by land occupiers; invitees and licensees are owed reasonable care under all the circumstances.
- Reasonable-care analysis considers: (1) foreseeability of harm, (2) magnitude of the risk, (3) individual and social utility of maintaining the condition, and (4) burden or cost of protective measures.
- The trespasser classification remains; the possessor’s duty is to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless injury.
- The unified reasonable-care rule for licensees applies prospectively, not retroactively.
- A proprietor’s reasonable-care duty may, absent unusual circumstances, permit delaying removal of snow or ice during an ongoing storm and for a reasonable time thereafter; the principle applies to duties owed to both invitees and licensees.

## Conclusion

The court prospectively replaced Kansas’s status-based duty to social-guest licensees with a unified reasonable-care standard for invitees and licensees, retained the limited duty to trespassers, and affirmed summary judgment for the homeowners because the plaintiff’s claim remained governed by the prior licensee standard.


Jones v. Hansen, 867 P.2d 303 (Kan. 1994)