About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

31 Tenn. L. Rev. 485 (1963-1964)
Land Occupant's Liability to Invitees, Licensees, and Trespassers

handle is hein.journals/tenn31 and id is 499 raw text is: LAND OCCUPANT'S LIABILITY TO INVITEES, LICENSEES, AND TRESPASSERS The traditional idea that a man's house is his castle with which he can do as he pleases has been subjected to many exceptions and modifi- cations. One area of the law where this development is especially discernible is that of the land occupant's liability to non-occupants. The purpose of this Comment is to state both the extent of and the reason for these modifications. Aside from cases involving excavation and the like, where absolute liability is the rule,' it is generally true that liability will be imposed upon the occupant only where he has been guilty of some negligent act of omission or commission. Negligence, said the Tennessee Supreme Court, exists where: ... the defendant has violated some legal duty he owed plaintiff. So where such duty does not exist, however unfortunate the injury may be, and free from negligence, yet he must alone bear the consequences; he cannot impose them upon one under no obligation in law toward him, save not to inflict, directly or indirectly, wanton injury upon him.2 Since negligence is the basis for the occupant's liability, it follows that he is no insurer of the safety of another on the premises including that of the favored invitee. Numerous cases have so declared.3 Thus it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that some legal duty owed him by the defendant has been violated, and the sustaining of an injury on the premises is not in itself evidence of such a violation.4 The occupant's liability may arise from either his activities carried on while the plaintiff is upon his land or from dangerous conditions existing on the land. Concerning the latter, such liability depends upon control, rather than ownership, of the premises.5 The liability arising out of the ownership of land, as distinguished from the occupant's liability is discussed elsewhere.6 The feeling once was that to require an occupant to rid his land of latent defects would be to impose a duty incommensurate with the benefits to be derived thereby. The traditional rule affording immunity to the occupant has been so modified that now, more and more, he is I. Carroll Blake Const. Co. v. Boyle, 140 Tenn. 166, 203 S.W. 945 (1918). 2. Williams v. Nashville, 106 Tenn. 533, 63 S.W. 231 (1901). 3. Illinois Central R. Co. v. Nichols, 173 Tenn. 602, 615, 118 S.W.2d 213 (1938); Phillips v. Harvey Co., 196 Tenn. 174, 264 S.W.2d 810 (1954); Management Services v. Hellman, 40 Tenn. App. 127, 142, 289 S.W.2d 711 (1955); and Busler v. Cut Rate Super Market, 47 Tenn. App. 1, 334 S.W.2d 337 (1960). 4. See 4 SHEARMAN & REDFIELD, NFC.LIC.ENCE § 779 (1941). 5. 38 AM. JuR., Negligence § 94 (1941). 6. 2 Noel, Landlord's Liability in Tennessee, 30 TENN. L. REV. 368 (1963).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most