Opinion ID: 2611494
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: plaintiff's entry status determines the duty of care owed to him

Text: ¶ 8 In any case based upon negligence, the threshold question is whether the defendant had a duty to the particular plaintiff alleged to have suffered injury. [3] In this case, Pickens was injured while on real property owned and operated by TMM. TMM argues that its duty to Pickens is restricted by the entry classification system employed in premises liability cases. Pickens urges this court to reject the use of an injured party's entry status in determining the duty of care owed to an injured party by a property owner. Pickens cites cases from California (and some other states) which have abolished the common law approach to premises liability. [4] In those states, a landowner is liable for failure to use due care to maintain a reasonably safe premises, no matter what the entrant's status. This court has steadfastly adhered to the common law regime in premises liability cases. [5] Its commitment was most recently restated and the status-based classification regime applied in Brown v. Nicholson . [6] We decline the invitation to depart from precedent followed since statehood.