Opinion ID: 2192834
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Holder's Status

Text: At the outset, Holder urges us to abolish the traditional premises liability classifications applied by Texas courts for well over a century to determine a landowner's duty to persons coming onto the property. That duty is defined by the entrant's status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser to the premises. See Rosas v. Buddies Food Store, 518 S.W.2d 534, 536 (Tex.1975); Carlisle v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 137 Tex. 220, 152 S.W.2d 1073, 1074-75 (1941); Galveston Oil Co. v. Morton, 70 Tex. 400, 7 S.W. 756, 757-58 (1888). According to Holder, we should follow the lead of those jurisdictions that have abrogated the traditional classification scheme, and define Mellon's duty under ordinary negligence principles. It is true that some jurisdictions have abolished the traditional classification scheme, regarding it as unjust, unworkable and unpredictable. [3] See, e.g., Michael Sears, Abrogation of the Traditional Common Law of Premises Liability, 44 U. Kan. L. Rev. 175, 184 (1995). Those courts now define a landowner's duty not in terms of the plaintiff's status, but in terms of foreseeable risk and reasonable care. See id. The California Supreme Court first articulated the rationale for doing so: A man's life or limb does not become less worthy of protection by the law nor a loss less worthy of compensation under the law because he has come upon the land of another without permission or with permission but without a business purpose. Reasonable people do not ordinarily vary their conduct depending upon such matters, and to focus upon the status of the injured party as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee in order to determine the question whether the landowner has a duty of care, is contrary to our modern social mores and humanitarian values. The common law rules obscure rather than illuminate the proper considerations which should govern determination of the question of duty. Rowland, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d at 568. Thus, the traditional classifications have been criticized as occasioning inequitable results. It has been noted, however, that while the movement to abolish the traditional scheme gathered momentum through the mid-1970s, it has since come to a screeching halt. PROSSER & KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 62, at 433. In the last decade, only Nevada has abolished all entrant classifications. See Moody v. Manny's Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 871 P.2d 935, 942-43 (1994). Most other jurisdictions have decided to retain the traditional classifications in some form, recognizing that their abrogation in favor of what has been criticized as a standard with no contours would create corresponding problems. Younce v. Ferguson, 106 Wash.2d 658, 724 P.2d 991, 995 (1986). The premises liability classifications reflect policy judgments carefully developed over time to balance the landowner's interest in the free use and enjoyment of his land against the interests of persons injured by the land's condition. The categories and their corresponding duties place rational limits on the liability of landowners, assuring that property owners do not become absolute insurers against all risk of injuries that others might sustain on their property. These distinctions afford a degree of certainty to what would otherwise be an amorphous standard of liability, and provide relatively predictable rules by which landowners and entrants may assess the propriety of their conduct. As recently stated by the Supreme Court of Missouri in deciding to retain the traditional categories: To abandon the careful work of generations for an amorphous `reasonable care under the circumstances' standard seemsto put it kindlyimprovident. Carter v. Kinney, 896 S.W.2d 926, 930 (Mo.1995). It is not surprising, then, that most jurisdictions continue to apply the traditional premises liability classifications. [4] And several jurisdictions have attempted to reach a middle ground by abolishing the distinction between licensees and invitees, but retaining limited duty rules toward trespassers. [5] While I agree that this middle road is far more compelling than the wholesale abandonment of the traditional classifications, we are not faced with that issue in this case. Because the traditional classifications are supported by many years of carefully developed law and public policy and afford relative certainty to an otherwise nebulous premises liability standard, I would decline to abandon them now. Far from mak[ing] all property owners insurers of the general public, as Justice Baker charges, I rely on well-established precedent in defining the duty owed to Holder by determining her status as an invitee, a licensee, or a trespasser to Mellon's garage. An invitee enters onto another's land with the owner's knowledge and for the mutual benefit of both parties. See Rosas, 518 S.W.2d at 536. The owner owes an invitee a duty of reasonable care to protect her from foreseeable injuries. Id. It is undisputed that Holder was not an invitee; her presence in the garage was neither for Mellon's benefit nor with its knowledge. The closer question is whether Holder was a licensee or a trespasser. A trespasser enters another's property without express or implied permission. See Texas-Louisiana Power Co. v. Webster, 127 Tex. 126, 91 S.W.2d 302, 306 (1936); Weaver v. KFC Management, Inc., 750 S.W.2d 24, 26 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1988, writ denied). A licensee, by comparison, is a person who is privileged to enter on land only by virtue of the owner's consent and under such circumstances that he is not a trespasser. Rowland v. City of Corpus Christi, 620 S.W.2d 930, 933 (Tex.Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.); see also Dominguez v. Garcia, 746 S.W.2d 865, 866-67 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1988, writ denied); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 330 (1965). Licensees have been found to include: those taking short cuts across the property...; loafers, loiterers and people who come in only to get out of the weather; those in search of their children; servants or other third persons; spectators and sightseers not in any way invited to come; those who enter for social visits or personal business dealings with employees of the possessor of the land; tourists visiting a plant at their own request; those who come to borrow tools or to pick up and remove refuse or chattels for their own benefit; salesmen calling at the door of private homes, and those soliciting money for charity; and a stranger entering an office building to post a letter in a mail-box provided for the use of tenants only. PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 60, at 413 (citations omitted). For purposes of distinguishing an invitee from a licensee, courts have often looked to the entrant's purpose in coming onto the property. Thus, it has been said that a licensee's presence on the premises is for his own purposes, benefits, convenience or pleasure. Rowland, 620 S.W.2d at 933; Smith v. Andrews, 832 S.W.2d 395, 397 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1992, writ denied). However, the traditional premises liability classifications have also been retained, in large part, to afford owners an element of certainty regarding their duty to entrants upon the property. In the present case, where it cannot be said that Holder entered the garage for her own purposes, benefits, convenience or pleasure, the more appropriate inquiry is whether Mellon expressly or impliedly consented to the entry. See Webster, 91 S.W.2d at 306; Rowland, 620 S.W.2d at 933; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 330 (1965). It is undisputed that Holder did not have Mellon's express consent to enter the garage. But consent to enter property may be manifested by the owner's conduct or by the condition of the land itself. See PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 60, at 413. Situations clearly exist where a trespass has been tolerated for such a sufficient period of time that the public believes it has the `permission' of the possessor to use the property. Murphy v. Lower Neches Valley Auth., 529 S.W.2d 816, 820 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1975), rev'd on other grounds, 536 S.W.2d 561 (Tex.1976); see also Boydston v. Norfolk S. Corp., 73 Ohio App.3d 727, 598 N.E.2d 171 (Ohio Ct.App.1991)(stating that [consent] can be implied from acquiescence to continued use of the property by the public). In Murphy v. Lower Neches Valley Authority, for example, a teenage swimmer was injured when he jumped into a canal and struck his head on a lump of clay. 529 S.W.2d at 817. The summary judgment evidence showed that boys swam in the canal every day, the defendant knew that boys swam in the canal yet never asked them to leave, and no signs prohibited their activity. Id. at 820. The court concluded that the defendant did not prove, as a matter of law, that the injured boy was a trespasser and not a licensee. Id. Likewise, in City of El Paso v. Zarate, the plaintiff sued the City of El Paso after her two sons drowned in a muddy city pond. 917 S.W.2d 326, 329 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1996, no writ). The City claimed that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding that the boys were licensees and not trespassers. Id. at 330. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that the City gave its implied permission to use the premises because it failed to fence the area, put up barricades, or post warning signs, even though it knew people often entered the area to remove dirt and knew that four years earlier a child almost drowned in the pond. Id. at 331. Conversely, in Smither v. Texas Utilities Electric Company, the court classified the injured party as a trespasser, rather than a licensee, when the evidence showed that efforts were made to prevent access to the premises. 824 S.W.2d 693, 694-95 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1992, writ dism'd by agt.). That is not to say that every tolerance of an intrusion will imply an owner's consent to enter the land. Instead, courts have articulated sound principles to determine the conditions under which consent may be inferred from the owner's tolerance of continued trespass. First, consent to enter is not implied unless the owner has actual knowledge that people have been entering the land. Cf. Hall v. Holton, 330 So.2d 81, 83 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976); Gonzalez v. Broussard, 274 S.W.2d 737, 738 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1954, writ ref'd n.r.e.). And implied consent may only be found when an owner with actual knowledge fails to take reasonable steps to prevent or discourage those persons from entering the land. Compare Zarate, 917 S.W.2d at 331-32 (upholding trial court's finding that plaintiff was a licensee and not a trespasser when defendant knew people used land but made no attempt to keep them out) with Longbottom v. Sim-Kar Lighting Fixture Co., 651 A.2d 621, 622-23 (Pa. Commw.Ct.1994) (holding that defendant school conclusively proved it did not consent to people climbing on roof when evidence showed school undertook various measures to prevent access). Finally, an owner need not take steps to evict known trespassers when doing so would be unduly burdensome or futile. See Boydston, 598 N.E.2d at 174 (quoting PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 60, at 414: [T]he mere toleration of continued intrusion where objection or interference would be burdensome or likely to be futile ... is not in itself and without more a manifestation of consent). In the present case, the summary judgment evidence shows that Mellon knew people were using the garage on nights and weekends for drinking alcohol and sleeping, yet took no action to keep them away. There is some evidence that Mellon impliedly consented to public entry by failing to make any attempt to impede access to the garage or post no trespassing signs when it knew the public was in fact entering the garage and sleeping there. Mellon presented nothing to indicate that it would have been unduly burdensome or futile to attempt to keep the public from the garage, but rather stated only that the problem wasn't noteworthy of any corrective action being taken. Based on this summary judgment record, I cannot conclude as a matter of law that Holder was a trespasser, rather than a licensee, on Mellon's premises. See Wiley v. National Garages, Inc., 22 Ohio App.3d 57, 488 N.E.2d 915, 923 (Ohio Ct.App.1984) (conferring licensee status on plaintiff who was assaulted after parking in defendant's parking garage on Sunday during off hours with owner's implied permission). Nor do I find any support for Justice Enoch's position that a license for the public to enter the garage on foot does not imply a license to enter by car. When the plaintiff is a licensee, the owner is negligent with respect to the condition of the premises if a. the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; b. defendant had actual knowledge of the danger; c. plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of the danger; and d. defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to protect plaintiff from danger, by both failing to adequately warn plaintiff of the condition and failing to make that condition reasonably safe. State v. Williams, 940 S.W.2d 583, 584 (Tex.1996) (per curiam opinion denying application for writ of error). Mellon's motion for summary judgment did not address its potential liability if Holder were found to be a licensee, nor do we. In sum, after properly placing the summary judgment burden on Mellon and resolving all inferences from the facts in Holder's favor, I conclude that fact issues exist as to the foreseeability of the risk of criminal conduct in the garage and Mellon's actual knowledge of that risk. Because the Court concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.