Court Opinion

ID: 9459497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:21:59.587303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:49.288013
License: Public Domain

SOBELOFF, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
My brethren, Judges Bazelon and Lev-enthal, are in agreement that the traditional distinctions between licensees and invitees are an archaic remnant of the common law and tend to confuse rather than assist in reaching a just resolution of disputed questions of liability. They agree further that with regard to all but trespassers no distinction should be made in the standard used to adjudicate the liability of occupiers of business and the occupiers of residential properties. In these sentiments, I fully concur.
Judge Bazelon would have the trial judge instruct the jury that the Good-wins owed Cooper “the duty of maintaining their property in a condition reasonably safe under all the circumstances.” Judge Leventhal, on the other hand, would phrase this instruction as “the duty to take such care, as in all circumstances is reasonable, to see that any person invited or permitted on the premises will be reasonably safe in using the premises for a purpose that was reasonably to be expected.” In respect to all but the question of the duty owed a trespasser, I see no meaningful distinction between the two formulations, although Judge Bazelon’s seems preferable as it is a simpler, more lucid explanation of the law and will be more easily understood by a jury. Under either proposed instruction, the jury is to consider in its deliberations all the circumstances surrounding the injury.
Only on the question of liability to a trespasser do Judges Bazelon and Leven-thal lock horns. Judge Bazelon would extend the “all the circumstances” test to include the duty of care owed a trespasser. See Bazelon Opinion at Footnote 13. Judge Leventhal seemingly would have the circumstances test govern only the liability to trespassers upon *659business property,1 but would maintain the rule that “a householder has no legal duty, as to trespassers entering without his consent, * * * subject to limited exceptions.” 2 Actually, the question of the degree of care owed by property owners to trespassers is not presented in this case; it was neither briefed nor argued. The discussion about the duty to trespassers is entirely gratuitous and without foundation in the record. I would refrain, under these circumstances, from fully endorsing the position of either of my two distinguished colleagues in respect to the property owner’s liability to trespassers and would defer deciding this question until it is properly before the court and has been maturely developed in briefs and arguments upon a record that squarely raises the issue.

. In the case of trespassers, a higher duty may rightly be put on the occupier of a business property by virtue of both accessibility of insurance and the business reasons that tolerate what is technically a trespass. Leventhal Concurring Opinion at p. 658.

. Smith v. Arbaugh’s Restaurant, Inc., 152 U.S.App.D.C. 86, 97, 469 F.2d 97, 108 (1972) (Leventhal concurring).