Opinion ID: 2449904
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Relationship between ATO-UNR and ATO-UNLV and the Sparkses

Text: As noted above, ATO-UNR or ATO-UNLV owed a duty to the Sparkses only if a special relationship existed between the fraternities and the Sparkses. Whether such a relationship existed depends upon the level of actual control the local chapters exerted over the Sparkses or over Clack. We have previously concluded that special relationships giving rise to a duty of care include, but are not limited to, those between an innkeeper-guest, teacher-student [and] employer-employee, as well as a restaurateur and his patrons. Lee v. GNLV Corp., 117 Nev. 291, 295-96, 22 P.3d 209, 212 (2001). Other courts have also recognized landowner-invitee, businessman-patron . . . school district-pupil, hospital-patient, and carrier-passenger relationships. Scialabba, 112 Nev. at 969, 921 P.2d at 930. The sole relationship cited by the Sparkses on appeal as existing between them and the ATO respondents is that of landowner/possessor-invitee. We disagree. First, there is no such relationship present between the ATO respondents and the Sparkses, as the Sparkses were not invitees of the ATO respondents. This fact is critical because, as explained in Scialabba, the reason behind imposing a duty in a landowner-invitee relationship is that the invitee's ability to protect himself has been limited in some way by his submission to the control of the other, [such that] a duty should be imposed upon the one possessing control. Id. (internal quotation omitted). As the Sparkses were not invitees and thus did not submit themselves to the control of the ATO respondents, the Sparkses' argument fails. Furthermore, even assuming, without deciding, that a duty to the Sparkses under a landowner/possessor-invitee relationship could exist based on the fact that Clack was an invitee of the ATO respondents, such a duty would not apply here. While [a] land owner or occupier owes a duty to the people on the land to act reasonably under the circumstances, Rockwell v. Sun Harbor Budget Suites, 112 Nev. 1217, 1228, 925 P.2d 1175, 1182 (1996), the altercation at issue in this matter occurred in an area not controlled by the ATO respondents. Thus, even under this potential theory, the ATO respondents had no duty to control Clack outside of their tailgate area.