Opinion ID: 864447
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether this court should abolish the

Text: DISTINCTIONS OF INVITEE, LICENSEE, AND TRESPASSER, IN DETERMINING THE STATUS OF A PERSON SERIOUSLY INJURED OR KILLED IN A PREMISES LIABILITY ACTION. ¶17. Mississippi follows the practice of classifying a person who enters the land of another as an invitee, licensee, or a trespasser in order to establish what duty, if any, the landowner or landlord owes a person who is injured on the premises. See Hudson v. Courtesy Motors, Inc., 794 So.2d 999, 1003 (Miss. 2001). Plaintiffs urge the Court to abolish these distinctions when deciding a premises liability action. They contend the classifications should be replaced with a reasonable person standard. They argue that the 7 owner or operator of the premises had actual or at least constructive knowledge of Butcher’s violent nature and of the Flash Store's “atmosphere of violence.” Thus, they conclude, a reasonable person would have taken measures to protect the public from these dangers. ¶18. The defendants, on the other hand, assert that the Court has always placed a status on persons entering onto someone else's land in order to determine liability of the landowner or operator of a business. They urge us to retain these time-tested classifications. ¶19. This Court recently declined an invitation such as that urged by plaintiffs. See Pinnell v. Bates, 838 So.2d 198 (Miss. 2002). In Pinnell, we stated: “There is no compelling reason to change our timehonored law on premises liability now. The distinctions between licensee and invitee have been developed over many years and are grounded in reality.” Id. at 199. This reasoning remains persuasive. We again decline to abandon the invitee, licensee, and trespasser distinctions. ¶20. This assignment is without merit.