Opinion ID: 1434913
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff's Claim Against Property Owner Papanikolas

Text: In considering the duty of a landowner to persons coming on his property, it is appropriate to point out the distinction between what are termed invitees or business visitors as compared to those who are termed licensees. In order to qualify as the former, one who goes upon the premises of another must do so at the invitation of the owner. This may be expressed, or it may be implied because it is done in connection with the owner's business, or some mutual business of advantage to the owner. With respect to such invitees, the landowner has a comparatively high degree of care to assure their safety. [5] A licensee is one who goes on the land of another without any such invitation. But in order that he not be a mere trespasser, there must be permission from the landowner, [6] or at least an implied permission, which may be inferred from the latter's knowingly allowing repeated use of his land without objection. The latter is the best possible view for the plaintiff's status in this case. In the instance of licensees it is considered that the owner has a somewhat lesser degree of duty than he has to invitees or business visitors. Although he has a duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injury to such licensees, he generally has no duty to inspect his land to discover possible dangers, or to correct natural conditions on his land to guard against dangers to such licensees; and this is particularly true where the facts concerning any possible danger are just as apparent to the third party as to the landowner. [7] The consideration of this principle, in conjunction with what has been said herein about the plaintiff's own contributory negligence, provides justification for the trial court's ruling in favor of the property owner, defendant Papanikolas. [8]