Court Opinion

ID: 9883243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 01:38:52.668833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:17.331396
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I concur in the judgment of reversal. However, the rule applicable to gratuitous licenses should not be as stated in the majority opinion.
*104It is not good law nor in keeping with the modern trend of decisions, to say, as does the majority, that the owner of property is liable only for wanton and wilful conduct as to gratuitous licensees (persons who are on the property with implied or express consent of the owner but not as business visitors in whose presence he has an economic interest) with respect to the dangerous condition of his property as distinguished from activity thereon by him, even though he had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. Where an owner has actual knowledge of a dangerous condition on his property, his duty should be ordinary care toward gratuitous licensees and he would have to at least warn of the danger. Such licensee would still be in a category different from a business visitor, because as to the latter, the owner must not only guard against known dangers but also those which would have been revealed by reasonable inspection, that is, those he should have known of in the exercise of ordinary care. This is the rule in the Restatement. “A possessor of land is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to gratuitous licensees by a natural or artificial condition thereon if, but only if, he
“(a) knows of the condition and realizes that it involves an unreasonable risk to them and has reason to believe that they will not discover the condition or realize the risk, and
“(b) invites or permits them to enter or remain upon the land, without exercising reasonable care
1 ‘ (i) to make the condition reasonably safe, or
“ (ii) to warn them of the condition and the risk involved therein.” (Rest. Torts, §342.)
Also, our statutes read: “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself.” (Emphasis added; Civ. Code, §1714.) And the District Court of Appeal has said: “The law in reference to the duty owed to trespassers, licensees and invitees has largely developed in reference to the duty of an owner or occupier of real property or structures thereon. The statutes of this state do not provide that a different duty is owed to persons in the three named categories. The only relevant statute is section 1714 of the Civil Code, which provides: ‘Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his wilful acts, but also for an injury occa*105sioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter has, wilfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself.’ In spite of this code section, which has been in our law unchanged since 1872, and which states a civil law and not a common-law principle (Code Napoleon, § 1383; Louisiana Code (1808), § 2215), our courts, in some cases at least, and in apparent disregard of the section, have followed the common-law rule, which purports to make precise and rigid distinctions as to the duty owed by the owner or occupier to invitees, licensees and trespassers. Thus, it has been stated that towards a trespasser the owner or occupier only owes a duty to refrain from wilful or wanton conduct; towards a licensee a similar duty, plus the affirmative duty to warn of unusual dangers, while towards an invitee there is the duty to exercise ordinary care and prudence. (See eases collected 13 Cal.L.Rev. 72, 73, footnotes 5, 6 and 7.) Such an approach requires a court to first determine the precise status of the visitor, which is sometimes a most difficult task, and then to determine from the cases whether the owner has violated any duty owed to a member of such a class. Such an approach is unrealistic, arbitrary, and inelastic. The point where the duties towards members of each of the classes begins or ends or where it should begin or end, or where the duty not to act becomes supplemented by the duty to act, is almost impossible of perception. It is no wonder that exceedingly fine distinctions have been developed so that the law is most confused in this field. (See, note, 13 Cal.L.Rev. 72.) Many cases, and particularly the more recent ones, have in fact applied the general doctrine of negligence embodied in section 1714 of the Civil Code rather than the common-law rigid categories test. (For a good discussion of these problems see Boucher v. American Bridge Co., 95 Cal.App.2d 659, 667 [213 P.2d 537], et seq.)
“Thus, while there are many cases holding that a land owner is only required to refrain from inflicting wanton or wilful injuries on a trespasser or licensee (see many cases collected 19 Cal.Jur. p. 616, §52, fn. 13), there are many cases also holding that after ‘ a trespasser is seen in a position of danger, due care must be exercised to avoid injuring him, and it is negligence not to do so.’ (19 Cal.Jur. p. 616, § 52, at p. 617; see cases collected in fn. 17 on p. 618.) This duty of reasonable care not only extends to situations where *106the land owner knows of a trespasser’s presence, but also to situations where he should know of his presence. Thus, the Restatement of Torts (vol. 2, § 336) declares that if the possessor of land does not know of a trespasser’s presence, but ‘from facts known to him should know or believe that another is or may be’ trespassing, he is ‘subject to liability for bodily harm thereafter caused to the trespasser by the possessor's failure to carry on his activities upon the land with reasonable care for the trespasser’s safety.’ (Many California cases are cited as being in accord in the California annotation to this section.)
“Many courts, in imposing this duty of reasonable care towards trespassers and licensees, have drawn a distinction between active and passive negligence, and have limited the reasonable care test to overt acts of negligence. (See annotation 49 A.L.R. 778.) California has quite clearly adopted this distinction and imposed a duty to exercise reasonable care towards known licensees or trespassers so far as active operations are concerned. In the well-reasoned case of Oettinger v. Stewart, 24 Cal.2d 133, 138 [148 P.2d 19, 156 A.L.R. 1221], cases to the contrary were expressly overruled. (See also Herold v. P. H. Mathews Paint House, 39 Cal.App. 489, 493 [179 P. 414]; Barnett v. La Mesa Post No. 282, 15 Cal.2d 191, 194 [99 P.2d 650] ; Yamauchi v. O’Neill, 38 Cal.App.2d 703, 708 [102 P.2d 365]; Hamakawa v. Crescent Wharf etc. Co., 4 Cal.2d 499, 503 [50 P.2d 803].) This rule imposing a duty to exercise reasonable care towards known trespassers so far as affirmative acts are concerned, is in accord with the modern trend of authorities.” (Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc., 98 Cal.App.2d 91, 95 [219 P.2d 73].) The real factor is whether the person is known by the owner to be on the premises and in case of a licensee or even a trespasser, he may have that knowledge. (See Oettinger v. Stewart, 24 Cal.2d 133 [148 P.2d 19, 156 A.L.R. 1221].) In the case of licensees the landowner knows they are there and when he also knows there is a dangerous condition which they will encounter, it is not unreasonable to impose upon him the duty of taking some measure to protect the licensee from the danger (see 38 Am.Jur., Negligence, § 106) and that is the modern trend. (James, Tort Liability of Occupiers of Land: Duties Owed to Licensees and Invitees, 63 Yale L.J. 605.)
It is not necessary in this case to state that a property owner is liable to a gratuitous licensee only for wanton or *107wilful conduct with reference to.the condition of his property for there are other reasons why plaintiff has not made a case here. This court has not announced such a rule for many years and Oettinger v. Stewart, supra, 24 Cal.2d 133, casts doubt upon it. This court should reexamine such a rule in line with the discussion in Fernandez v. Consolidated Fisheries, Inc., quoted supra, 98 Cal.App.2d 91.