Does a landowner owe a social guest a duty of ordinary care to warn of or remedy a known concealed dangerous condition on the premises, regardless of the guest's classification as a licensee?

James Rowland (plaintiff) visited the apartment of Nancy Christian (defendant) as her social guest. About a month before the visit, Christian had told the building's lessors that the knob of the cold water faucet on the bathroom basin was cracked and should be replaced. Nothing was done to repair it. Immediately before the accident, Rowland told Christian that he was going to use the bathroom. Christian said nothing to him about the cracked handle. When Rowland turned off the faucet, the porcelain handle broke in his hand, severing tendons and the medial nerve in his right hand. Rowland sought recovery of medical and hospital expenses, lost wages, damage to his clothing, and $100,000 in general damages. The record did not establish whether the crack was obvious or concealed. Christian's affidavit established only that Rowland was a social guest, that the handle broke in his hand, and that he had used the bathroom on a prior occasion. Rowland's counteraffidavit asserted that Christian had known of the crack for two weeks and had not warned him.

Rowland filed a personal injury action against Christian in the trial court. Christian answered with a general denial, alleged that Rowland was a social guest, and pleaded contributory negligence and assumption of the risk. Christian moved for summary judgment, supporting the motion with her own affidavit. Rowland filed an opposing affidavit. The trial court granted summary judgment for Christian. Rowland appealed to the California Supreme Court, which heard the case in bank.

(Peters, J.)

Yes. A landowner owes a social guest a duty of ordinary care, and the common law classifications of trespasser, licensee, and invitee no longer control the scope of that duty. Summary judgment was improper.

Summary judgment is a drastic remedy. It is proper only if the moving party's own affidavits would sustain a judgment in her favor, and doubts are resolved against the moving party. Christian's affidavit and Rowland's admissions showed only that he was a social guest injured when the faucet handle broke. They did not show that the crack was obvious. Rowland could prove, consistent with those showings, that the crack was concealed, that Christian knew of it, and that she failed to warn or repair. Judgment would not be required as a matter of law on those facts.

Civil Code section 1714 provides that everyone is responsible for injury caused by want of ordinary care or skill in managing his property. Departures from that principle are justified only where clearly supported by public policy, after balancing foreseeability of harm, certainty of injury, closeness of the connection between conduct and injury, moral blame, the policy of preventing future harm, the burden on the defendant and the community, and the availability of insurance.

The common law landowner categories derive from feudal deference to landowners. They produced confusion, fictions such as the "active negligence" and "concealed trap" exceptions, and arbitrary results. They do not track the factors that should determine immunity. A person's life or limb is no less worthy of protection because he is a guest or trespasser rather than a business visitor.

The proper test is whether the possessor acted as a reasonable person in managing his property in view of the probability of injury to others. The plaintiff's status may bear on that question but is not determinative. Where an occupier knows of a concealed condition posing an unreasonable risk and knows a person is about to encounter it, a trier of fact may find that failure to warn or repair is negligence. The judgment is reversed.

Dissent (Burke, J.) The distinctions among trespassers, licensees, and invitees have been developed over many years and supply a workable approach that gives stability and predictability. A landowner reasonably owes a greater duty to an invited customer than to a trespasser, and a social guest should take the premises as his host finds them. A homeowner should not be required to hover over guests with warnings about waxed floors, slipping rugs, or toys. The majority opens the door to potentially unlimited liability and decides cases without guiding principles or precedent. Sweeping changes to tort liability belong to the Legislature, where all affected interests can be heard and uniform standards enacted. Burke would affirm the judgment for defendant. McComb, J., concurred in the dissent.