Emerging Trends in Premises Liability Law: Ohio's Latest Modification Continues to Chip Away at Bedrock Principles
![handle is hein.journals/onulr21 and id is 1131 raw text is: q'ji0 N'orthern P1niersibg
Emerging Trends in Premises Liability Law:
Ohio's Latest Modification Continues to Chip
Away at Bedrock Principles
RICHARD L. FERRELL, III*
I. INTRODUCTION
The law must be stable, but it must not stand still.' This
stability is repeatedly being challenged due to the ongoing controversy
among courts and commentators to determine the proper scope of
liability of landowners/occupiers to entrants who are injured while
on the landowner's property.2 This controversy continues to expand
as states like Ohio devise their own unique twists on long-established
methods.'
The method for determining liability which the great majority of
courts continue to apply is the common law classification system.4
Under this system, a land occupier's liability is determined by the
status of the entrant as an invitee, licensee or trespasser.5 The duty
* J.D., University of Akron, 1994. Richard Ferrell is an Attorney practicing personal
injury law in Northwest Ohio.
1. Bichler v. Eli Lilly & Co., 436 N.Y.S.2d 625, 632 (1981) (citing RoscoE POUND,
INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF LAW (Yale University Press 1954)).
2. See, e.g., W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS §
62, at 432-33 (5th ed. 1984) [hereinafter PROSSER] (discussing the criticisms of the common law
system) (citing 2 HARPER & JAMES, LAW OF TORTS § 27.3 at 1430-1505 (1956)); Kathryn Eriksen,
Comment, Premises Liability in Texas - Time for a Reasonable Change, 17 ST. MARY'S
L.J. 417, 417-19 (1986) (stating that in recent years the common law system has endured much
criticism from both courts and commentators, but many courts have expressly refused to
abandon the common law).
3. See infra notes 49, 135 (discussing just two of these twists, one being the creation
of a fourth class of entrant under the common law system and the other being the elimination
of the independent contractor as a possessor entitled to the protection of the open and obvious
danger doctrine).
4. The great majority of jurisdictions steadfastly apply the common law system to
landowner liability. PROSSER, supra note 2, § 58 at 393; Comment, The Common Law Tort
Liability of Owners and Occupiers of Land: A Trap for the Unwary?, 36 MD. L. REV. 816,
822-23 (1977) [hereinafter A Trap for the Unwary] (stating that most American jurisdictions
have retained the common law classifications).
5. Comment, Torts-Abrogation of Common Law Entrant Classes of Trespasser, Li-
censee, and Invitee, 25 VAND. L. REV. 623 (1972) [hereinafter Abrogation of Common Law
Entrant Classes].
1121](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/onulr21&div=70&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Emerging Trends in Premises Liability Law: Ohio's Latest Modification Continues to Chip Away at Bedrock Principles
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most