***Part A. 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 B. In Knorpp vs. Hale, at 981 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. App. 1998), 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?
***The court in McCoy vs. American Suzuki Motor Corp. at 961 P. 2d 952 (Wash. 1998), 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 injured.
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?
***To support a strict liability claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant’s activity should be classified as abnormally dangerous. Does the plaintiff also have to provide evidence to prove that the defendant, who was engaging in an abnormally dangerous activity, was at fault? Explain the reasons why or why not.
Analyze the Restatement’s six factors that are to be considered in determining whether or not an activity is “abnormally dangerous” to determine whether or not public displays of fireworks justify the imposition of strict liability. See Klein v. Pyrodyne Corp. at 117 Wash. 2d 1, 810 P.2d 917 (1991).
***The estate of Roseanne sued M.F. Pitt Tobacco Co. claiming that she died of lung cancer caused by cigarette smoke. Roseanne was not a smoker, but her estate claimed that she was injured by breathing “environmental tobacco smoke” coming directly from the cigarette into the air or exhaled by nearby people who smoked.
Discuss whether or not Roseanne should be considered as a “bystander” or as a “user” of the product, and what resulting duty if any, was owed to her by the cigarette manufacturer. See MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. at 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916).
Determine if the injured party should recover damages from the manufacturer in the stated example and state your rationale.
Please cite references…..