The Iowa Supreme Court has abandoned the common law distinction between invitees and licensees in premises liability cases. Koenig v. Koenig was filed by the Court on Friday, June 5, 2009.
Valerie Koenig was at her son's home when she slipped on a carpet cleaner hose while carrying a basket of laundry. She suffered a broken leg. A plate had to be surgically inserted.
A jury found for her son. Valerie Koenig's lawyer objected to an Iowa Uniform Jury Instruction describing Valerie Koenig as an invitee and describing the duties that Mark Koenig owed. Valerie Koenig's lawyer requested, but was denied, a general negligence instruction.
The Iowa Supreme Court opinion is written by Justice Brent Appel. It reviews the history of premises liability decisions in the state of Iowa over the past 40 years. The opinion notes that the Court has discussed on a number of occasions that the common law distinctions among and between trespassers (no duty owed by the property owner), as well as an invitee and a licensee, have created difficulties and confusion. The court observes that the common law rules were created more than three centuries ago. The opinion states that people do not alter their behavior based upon the status of a person who enters their land or uses their property. The Court states that abandoning the distinctions between invitees and licensees is consistent with modern notions of tort law and liability. The Court observes that there is no reason to believe that juries will return runaway verdicts or not have a standard by which to judge conduct in premises liability cases. Finally, the Court states that abandoning the invitee/licensee distinction recognizes the higher value placed upon public safety over property rights.
The Court adopts a multi-factor approach to premises liability cases suggested by the Nebraska Supreme Court and commented upon favorably by four members of the Iowa Supreme Court in Sheets v. Ritt, Ritt & Ritt, Inc., 581 N.W.2d 602, 606 (Iowa 1998). The factors to be considered are:
1. the foreseeability or possibility of harm;
2. the purpose for which the entrant entered the premises;
3. the time, manner and circumstance under which the entrant entered the premises;
4. the use to which the premises are put or are expected to be put;
5. the reasonableness of the inspection, repair or warning;
6. the opportunity and ease of repair or correction or giving of the warning;
7. the burden on the land occupier and/or community in terms of inconvenience or cost in providing adequate protection.
The common law regarding liability toward a person who trespasses on property continues. In a concurrence, Justice Michael Streit urges abandoning that common law rule governing trespass in premises liability cases as well.
A new trial is ordered for Valerie Koenig with jury instructions consistent with the opinion.
Comments