Should a landowner's duty of care be determined by a single negligence standard rather than the traditional common law categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee?

James Davis Rowland, Jr. sustained injuries while using the bathroom in Nancy Christian's apartment. The cold water faucet handle, which was cracked, broke in Rowland's hand, resulting in severed tendons and nerves. Christian had been aware of the defective handle for two weeks prior to the incident and had informed her landlord, but no repairs were made. Christian did not warn Rowland about the faulty faucet. At the time of the injury, Rowland was a social guest in Christian's apartment.

Rowland initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Christian. Christian responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, which the lower court granted in Christian's favor. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Rowland appealed the summary judgment decision to the California Supreme Court.

(Peters, J.)

Yes. A landowner's duty of care should be determined by a single negligence standard rather than the traditional common law categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee. The traditional common law distinctions between trespassers, licensees, and invitees in determining landowner liability are outdated, complex, and often lead to unjust results. The proper test for landowner liability is based on ordinary principles of negligence, as outlined in California Civil Code section 1714. This approach aligns with modern social values and provides a more just framework for assessing liability. The key question in determining liability is whether the landowner acted reasonably in view of the probability of injury to others. While a person's status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee may have some bearing on the liability question, it is not determinative. This single standard of care based on ordinary negligence principles allows for a more nuanced and fair assessment of landowner responsibilities. It recognizes that the duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others extends to all persons who may foreseeably be affected by one's actions or property conditions. By rejecting rigid categories and adopting a more flexible approach, the law can better account for the specific circumstances of each case and evolving societal expectations regarding property rights and personal safety.

Concurrence (Traynor, C. J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Tobriner, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Mosk, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Concurrence (Sullivan, J.) Concurred with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.

Dissent (Burke, J.) The traditional distinctions between trespassers, licensees, and invitees must be maintained. These classifications provide stability and predictability in the law. The majority's approach could lead to potentially unlimited liability for property owners. This shift undermines established legal principles and may create uncertainty in future cases involving premises liability.

Dissent (McComb, J.) Dissented with the majority opinion without providing a separate written opinion.