Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A person who is privileged to enter or remain on land only by virtue of the possessor's consent. The possessor owes the licensee a duty to warn of known dangerous conditions that the licensee is unlikely to discover. A license is generally terminable at the will of the licensee, subject to limited protections when the licensee has made expenditures in reliance on the license.
Lorenzo Lugo obtained consent from his neighbor to cross a backyard path each morning. After two weeks Lorenzo decided the route was inconvenient and stopped using it. The neighbor had no claim against Lorenzo for abandoning the path because the license remained subject to Lorenzo's own decision to terminate.
Lucy Liu visited her friend Leah Lamb for an evening dinner. Leah had expressly invited Lucy and opened the front door. Lucy therefore entered the home only because Leah consented, placing Lucy in the position of a licensee while she remained on the premises.
Lars Lindstrom had consent to store construction tools on a parcel owned by Linden Bank. When the bank revoked the license, it allowed Lars two full days to retrieve the tools and clear the site. The bank thereby satisfied the requirement that the licensee receive a reasonable opportunity to remove his effects.
Leonard Lowe, age six, entered a neighbor's yard with the neighbor's permission to play. The neighbor knew of an uncovered drainage pit but gave no warning. Because Leonard was a licensee, the neighbor faced the same potential liability that would have applied had Leonard been a trespasser.
Lila Lin installed irrigation lines on Liberty Trust land after the trust's manager stated the license would last at least five years. When the trust later sought early termination, Lila retained the right to continue using the lines long enough to recover her capital outlay because she had reasonably relied on the stated duration.
Leah Lamb invited her cousin to stay overnight. The cousin slipped on a loose stair tread that Leah had known about but had not repaired. Under the approach that discards rigid status categories, the cousin's status as a social guest no longer automatically limits the duty owed by the host.
Nancy Christian was the tenant of an apartment whose lessors had been notified by her on November 1, 1963, that the knob of the cold water faucet on the bathroom basin was cracked and should be replaced. On November 30, 1963, plaintiff Rowland entered the apartment at Christian's invitation as a social guest and was injured while using the bathroom fixtures when the porcelain handle of one of the water faucets broke in his hand. The injury severed the tendons and medial nerve in Rowland's right hand. He incurred medical and hospital expenses, suffered loss of wages, and sustained damage to his clothing. Rowland later filed a complaint alleging that the bathroom fixtures were dangerous, that Christian was aware of the dangerous condition, and that his injuries were proximately caused by her negligence. Christian filed an answer containing a general denial except that she admitted telling the lessors the faucet was defective and should be replaced. She also alleged contributory negligence and assumption of the risk on the ground that Rowland had failed to use his eyesight and knew of the condition of the premises. Christian supported her motion for summary judgment with an affidavit stating that Rowland was a social guest who had used the bathroom on a prior occasion and that the handle broke while he was using the faucet. In opposition, Rowland filed an affidavit stating that immediately prior to the accident he told Christian he was going to use the bathroom facilities, that she had known for two weeks that the faucet handle was cracked, that she had warned the manager of the building of the condition but nothing was done to repair it, that she did not warn him of the condition, and that the handle broke when he turned off the faucet. The trial court granted summary judgment for Christian, and Rowland appealed.
View caseA landowner must warn a licensee of dangerous conditions that are known to the owner and unlikely to be discovered by the licensee. The owner has no duty to inspect for unknown hazards.
A license is generally terminable at the will of the licensee. The licensee must receive a reasonable opportunity to remove personal effects when termination occurs.
Supporting sources
When a licensee has made capital or labor expenditures in reasonable reliance on representations about the license's duration, the licensee may continue the use long enough to realize the value of those expenditures.
Supporting sources
Rowland v. Christian rejected the rigid invitee-licensee-trespasser categories and imposed a general duty of reasonable care toward all entrants. Many jurisdictions continue to apply the traditional distinctions.
Supporting sources
…accident occurred through negligence in the operation, or maintenance, of the train; that he was rightfully on the premises as licensee because on a commonly used beaten footpath which ran for a short distance alongside the tracks; and that he was struck by something which looked like a door projecting from one of the…