26Torts

Negligence: Duty in Special Situations

This week examines limited-duty situations where the general duty of reasonable care is modified or limited: premises liability (duties to invitees, licensees, and trespassers), negligent infliction of emotional distress, pure economic loss, the no-duty-to-rescue rule and its exceptions, and the special duties of landowners, social hosts, and employers.

Prev Next

Learning Objectives

Analyze premises liability under the traditional tripartite classification: invitee (highest duty), licensee (warn of known dangers), trespasser (no duty except for known trespassers)
Apply the modern unitary standard (some jurisdictions): reasonable care under all circumstances regardless of entrant status
Identify the elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED): zone of danger test vs. bystander rule (Thing v. La Chica)
Analyze the economic loss doctrine: no recovery for pure economic loss absent physical injury or property damage
Apply special duty rules for common carriers, innkeepers, and social hosts who serve alcohol (social host liability/dram shop)

Key Rules

Premises liability traditional: Invitee (business purpose) = duty to inspect and make safe; Licensee (social guest) = duty to warn of known hidden dangers; Trespasser = no duty except: known trespassers, attractive nuisance (children).
NIED zone of danger (majority): Plaintiff must be in the zone of physical danger and suffer physical manifestation of emotional distress. Bystander rule (Thing v. La Chica): close family member, present at scene, contemporaneous sensory observation of injury.
Attractive nuisance: Landowner owes duty to child trespassers when: (1) artificial condition on land, (2) owner knows children likely to trespass, (3) unreasonable risk to children, (4) children cannot appreciate danger, (5) burden of eliminating danger is slight vs. risk.
No duty to rescue (general rule) with exceptions: special relationship, voluntary assumption, creation of peril, statutory duty.
Social host/dram shop: Some states impose liability on those who serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated guests or minors for resulting injuries to third parties.

Negligence: Duty in Special Situations

Premises Liability

Traditional Approach (Tripartite)

| Status | Definition | Duty Owed | |--------|-----------|----------| | Invitee | Enters for business purpose or public invitation | Inspect + make safe + warn | | Licensee | Social guest, enters with permission for own purpose | Warn of KNOWN hidden dangers | | Trespasser | Enters without permission | No duty (exceptions below) |

Modern Approach (Minority)

Some jurisdictions (California — Rowland v. Christian) abolished the categories and apply a single standard: reasonable care under all the circumstances regardless of entrant status.

Trespasser Exceptions

1. Known/anticipated trespassers: Duty to warn of known artificial dangers 2. Attractive nuisance doctrine (children): Duty regarding artificial conditions that attract children who cannot appreciate the danger

NIED

Zone of Danger Test (Majority)

Plaintiff recovers when: 1. Within the zone of physical danger created by defendant's negligence 2. Suffered serious emotional distress 3. With physical manifestation (insomnia, ulcers, PTSD symptoms)

Bystander Recovery (Thing v. La Chica — California)

Plaintiff not in zone of danger may recover when: 1. Close family relationship to the direct victim 2. Present at the scene of the injury-producing event 3. Contemporaneous sensory observation (saw/heard it happen) 4. Resulting serious emotional distress

Baby Bar Connection

Premises liability and NIED are commonly tested on the Baby Bar. Know the tripartite classification cold and be prepared to argue both traditional and modern approaches.

Cases to Know

Rowland v. Christian (1968) — California abolished traditional categories; single standard of reasonable care for all entrants
Thing v. La Chica (1989) — bystander NIED: close relationship, present at scene, contemporaneous observation
Carter v. Kinney (1995) — social guest is a licensee, not an invitee, under the traditional classification

California Codes — Official Authority

The statutes SofAI ties to this topic. Use them as your IRAC rule block, then verify the current text on the official leginfo link.

Cal. Civ. Code §1714 — Responsibility for one's own negligenceleginfo
Everyone is responsible for injury caused to another by their lack of ordinary care, subject to comparative fault for the injured person's own negligence.
Exam hook: Cite §1714 as the duty/standard-of-care baseline, then apply Rowland factors when duty is contested.
Cal. Gov. Code §911.2 — Government Claims Act — claim-presentation deadlineleginfo
A claim against a public entity for personal injury or property damage must generally be presented to the entity within six months of the injury.
Exam hook: When a defendant is a public entity, the §911.2 claim deadline is a threshold hurdle before the tort limitations period.

Explore all California Codes

Baby Bar Relevance

Premises liability and NIED are regularly tested on the Baby Bar. The traditional tripartite approach (invitee/licensee/trespasser) and the duties owed to each are among the most mechanical and therefore most testable topics in torts.

Week 25 Back to Dashboard Week 27

DashboardWeek 26

26Torts

Negligence: Duty in Special Situations

Prev Next

Learning Objectives

Analyze premises liability under the traditional tripartite classification: invitee (highest duty), licensee (warn of known dangers), trespasser (no duty except for known trespassers)
Apply the modern unitary standard (some jurisdictions): reasonable care under all circumstances regardless of entrant status
Identify the elements of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED): zone of danger test vs. bystander rule (Thing v. La Chica)
Analyze the economic loss doctrine: no recovery for pure economic loss absent physical injury or property damage
Apply special duty rules for common carriers, innkeepers, and social hosts who serve alcohol (social host liability/dram shop)

Key Rules

Premises liability traditional: Invitee (business purpose) = duty to inspect and make safe; Licensee (social guest) = duty to warn of known hidden dangers; Trespasser = no duty except: known trespassers, attractive nuisance (children).
NIED zone of danger (majority): Plaintiff must be in the zone of physical danger and suffer physical manifestation of emotional distress. Bystander rule (Thing v. La Chica): close family member, present at scene, contemporaneous sensory observation of injury.
Attractive nuisance: Landowner owes duty to child trespassers when: (1) artificial condition on land, (2) owner knows children likely to trespass, (3) unreasonable risk to children, (4) children cannot appreciate danger, (5) burden of eliminating danger is slight vs. risk.
No duty to rescue (general rule) with exceptions: special relationship, voluntary assumption, creation of peril, statutory duty.
Social host/dram shop: Some states impose liability on those who serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated guests or minors for resulting injuries to third parties.

Negligence: Duty in Special Situations

Premises Liability

Traditional Approach (Tripartite)

Modern Approach (Minority)

Some jurisdictions (California — Rowland v. Christian) abolished the categories and apply a single standard: reasonable care under all the circumstances regardless of entrant status.

Trespasser Exceptions

NIED

Zone of Danger Test (Majority)

Bystander Recovery (Thing v. La Chica — California)

Baby Bar Connection

Premises liability and NIED are commonly tested on the Baby Bar. Know the tripartite classification cold and be prepared to argue both traditional and modern approaches.

Cases to Know

Rowland v. Christian (1968) — California abolished traditional categories; single standard of reasonable care for all entrants
Thing v. La Chica (1989) — bystander NIED: close relationship, present at scene, contemporaneous observation
Carter v. Kinney (1995) — social guest is a licensee, not an invitee, under the traditional classification

California Codes — Official Authority

The statutes SofAI ties to this topic. Use them as your IRAC rule block, then verify the current text on the official leginfo link.

Cal. Civ. Code §1714 — Responsibility for one's own negligenceleginfo
Everyone is responsible for injury caused to another by their lack of ordinary care, subject to comparative fault for the injured person's own negligence.
Exam hook: Cite §1714 as the duty/standard-of-care baseline, then apply Rowland factors when duty is contested.
Cal. Gov. Code §911.2 — Government Claims Act — claim-presentation deadlineleginfo
A claim against a public entity for personal injury or property damage must generally be presented to the entity within six months of the injury.
Exam hook: When a defendant is a public entity, the §911.2 claim deadline is a threshold hurdle before the tort limitations period.

Explore all California Codes

Baby Bar Relevance

Week 25 Back to Dashboard Week 27