Learning Outcomes
After reading this article, you will be able to identify when and how owners and occupiers of land owe a duty of care to entrants, distinguish between the standards applied to trespassers, licensees, and invitees, and apply these principles to MBE-style negligence questions. You will also recognize the main exceptions, defenses, and common pitfalls tested on the MBE.
MBE Syllabus
For MBE, you are required to understand the rules governing negligence claims against owners and occupiers of land. This includes the classification of entrants, the applicable standard of care, and the main exceptions. For revision, focus on:
- The duty of care owed by landowners and occupiers to entrants (trespassers, licensees, invitees).
- The traditional and modern approaches to occupier’s liability.
- The "attractive nuisance" doctrine for child trespassers.
- The duty to inspect, warn, or make safe dangerous conditions.
- The difference between natural and artificial conditions.
- Defenses and exceptions, including open and obvious dangers.
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
-
Which of the following best describes the duty owed by a landowner to a discovered trespasser?
- No duty at all.
- Duty to warn of known, concealed, highly dangerous artificial conditions.
- Duty to inspect for unknown dangers.
- Duty to make all conditions safe.
-
Under the traditional approach, a social guest is classified as:
- An invitee.
- A licensee.
- A trespasser.
- A business visitor.
-
What is the "attractive nuisance" doctrine most likely to apply to?
- Adult trespassers only.
- Child trespassers and artificial conditions.
- Licensees and natural conditions.
- Invitees and open dangers.
Introduction
Negligence claims against owners and occupiers of land are a frequent topic on the MBE. The law distinguishes between different categories of entrants—trespassers, licensees, and invitees—and imposes different standards of care depending on the entrant’s status. Understanding these distinctions, and knowing the main exceptions and modern trends, is essential for answering MBE questions accurately.
Classification of Entrants
The traditional approach divides entrants into three categories:
- Trespassers: Enter land without permission.
- Licensees: Enter with permission for their own purposes (e.g., social guests).
- Invitees: Enter for a purpose connected to the occupier’s business or the land is held open to the public.
Key Term: Trespasser
A person who enters or remains on land without the occupier’s consent or legal right.Key Term: Licensee
A person who enters land with permission but not for a purpose benefiting the occupier (e.g., social guests).Key Term: Invitee
A person invited onto land for business purposes or as a member of the public where the land is open to the public.
Duty Owed to Trespassers
- Undiscovered Trespassers: No duty of care.
- Discovered or Anticipated Trespassers: Duty to warn or make safe only artificial conditions known to the occupier that pose a risk of death or serious harm and are not likely to be discovered by the trespasser.
Key Term: Discovered Trespasser
A trespasser whose presence is actually known or should reasonably be known to the occupier.
Duty Owed to Licensees
- Duty to warn or make safe dangerous conditions known to the occupier that the licensee is unlikely to discover.
- No duty to inspect for unknown dangers.
- Duty to exercise reasonable care in active operations.
Duty Owed to Invitees
- Duty to inspect for, warn of, and make safe dangerous conditions that the occupier knows or should know about.
- Includes both known and reasonably discoverable dangers.
- Duty applies to both natural and artificial conditions.
The Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
Landowners may be liable for injuries to child trespassers caused by artificial conditions if:
- The owner knows or should know children are likely to trespass.
- The condition poses an unreasonable risk of serious harm.
- The child, due to age, does not appreciate the risk.
- The utility of maintaining the condition is slight compared to the risk.
- The owner fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger.
Key Term: Attractive Nuisance Doctrine
A rule imposing liability on landowners for injuries to child trespassers caused by dangerous artificial conditions likely to attract children.
Artificial vs. Natural Conditions
- Artificial Conditions: Greater duty owed, especially to discovered trespassers and child trespassers.
- Natural Conditions: Generally, no duty to protect those off the premises from natural conditions except in urban areas (e.g., falling trees).
Modern Approach
Many jurisdictions have merged the licensee and invitee categories, applying a general duty of reasonable care to all lawful entrants. However, the traditional distinctions remain heavily tested on the MBE.
Open and Obvious Dangers
No duty to warn of open and obvious dangers to invitees or licensees, unless the occupier should anticipate harm despite the obviousness.
Defenses and Exceptions
- No duty to adult trespassers for natural conditions.
- No duty to warn of dangers the entrant already knows.
- "Recreational use" statutes may limit liability for land used without charge for recreational purposes.
Worked Example 1.1
A homeowner knows that a deep, uncovered pit exists in the backyard. A child from the neighborhood enters the yard without permission and falls into the pit, suffering serious injury. The pit is not visible from the street, and the homeowner is aware that children often play nearby. Is the homeowner likely liable?
Answer: Yes. The homeowner may be liable under the attractive nuisance doctrine. The pit is an artificial condition, the homeowner knows children play nearby, the risk is serious, and the child may not appreciate the danger. The homeowner failed to take reasonable steps to eliminate the hazard.
Worked Example 1.2
A shop owner discovers a trespasser asleep in the storeroom. The shop owner does not warn the trespasser about a loose, electrified wire in the storeroom, which is not visible. The trespasser is electrocuted. Is the shop owner liable?
Answer: Yes, if the owner knew of the trespasser and the dangerous artificial condition, and the trespasser was unlikely to discover the danger, the owner had a duty to warn or make safe.
Exam Warning
The MBE often tests your ability to distinguish between the duties owed to licensees and invitees. Remember: invitees are owed a duty to inspect for unknown dangers; licensees are not.
Revision Tip
If the question does not specify the entrant’s status, look for clues: social guests are licensees, business visitors are invitees, and uninvited entrants are trespassers.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The duty of care owed by landowners depends on the entrant’s status: trespasser, licensee, or invitee.
- Trespassers are owed the least duty; discovered trespassers must be warned of known, concealed, highly dangerous artificial conditions.
- Licensees must be warned of known dangers; no duty to inspect for unknown dangers.
- Invitees are owed the highest duty: reasonable inspection, warning, and making safe of known or discoverable dangers.
- The attractive nuisance doctrine imposes liability for injuries to child trespassers caused by artificial conditions.
- Many jurisdictions now apply a general duty of reasonable care to all lawful entrants.
- No duty to warn of open and obvious dangers unless harm is foreseeable.
- Defenses include lack of knowledge of entrant, open and obvious danger, and recreational use statutes.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Trespasser
- Licensee
- Invitee
- Discovered Trespasser
- Attractive Nuisance Doctrine