Basso v. Miller
386 N.Y.S.2d 564, 352 N.E.2d 868 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty of care to a person on their property is no longer determined by the person's status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. Instead, landowners owe a single duty to act as a reasonable person in maintaining their property in a reasonably safe condition under all circumstances.
Facts:
- Ice Caves Mountain, Inc. operated a scenic park as a tourist attraction.
- A patron, Jeffrey Shawcross, fell into a 40-foot crevice on the park's property.
- Frederick Basso (plaintiff) learned of the accident and went with William Miller on Miller's motorcycle to the park to assist in the rescue.
- An employee at the park entrance told Miller they had enough help and not to go up, but they proceeded to the rescue site anyway.
- Basso actively participated in the rescue, carrying first aid equipment and helping to carry Shawcross out on a stretcher.
- After the rescue was complete, late at night, Basso and Miller left the park on the motorcycle.
- While driving on a park road, the motorcycle hit a series of holes, went out of control, and crashed, causing Basso's injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Frederick Basso sued Ice Caves Mountain, Inc. and William Miller in the New York Supreme Court, Kings County (a trial-level court), for negligence.
- A jury found in favor of Basso on the issue of liability.
- The jury apportioned liability as 60% against defendant Miller and 40% against defendant Ice Caves Mountain.
- Both defendants appealed the interlocutory judgment to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Appellate Division then granted both defendants leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landowner's duty of care to persons on their land depend on whether the person is classified as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee?
Opinions:
Majority - Cooke, J.
No. A landowner's duty of care should no longer depend on the rigid and confusing common law classifications of trespasser, licensee, and invitee. The court abandons these distinctions in favor of a single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances, whereby foreseeability becomes a measure of liability. The old categories were inherited from a feudal culture and have produced confusion and conflict in modern society. This court adopts the standard that a landowner must act as a reasonable person in maintaining property in a reasonably safe condition in view of all circumstances, including the likelihood of injury, the seriousness of the injury, and the burden of avoiding the risk. While a person's status is no longer determinative, it can be considered as one of the factors in assessing what constitutes reasonable care. Because the trial court instructed the jury based on the old, erroneous status classifications, a new trial is required for Ice Caves Mountain under this new single standard of care.
Concurring - Breitel, C.J.
While concurring in the result of a new trial, this opinion disagrees with the majority's wholesale abolition of the common law categories. The majority's 'single standard' of 'reasonable care under the circumstances' is deceptively simple, provides no concrete guidance to courts or juries, and improperly delegates the responsibility for determining social policy to the jury. The traditional rules, while imperfect, provided predictive stability and evolved progressively over time. A better approach would be to reform the existing categories on a case-by-case basis, such as by re-evaluating the status of social guests, rather than sweeping them away entirely. The majority's drastic change was unnecessary to decide this case, as a jury could have found the plaintiff to be an invitee under the existing framework.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered premises liability law in New York by abolishing the longstanding common law distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers. The ruling replaces a rigid, status-based framework with a more flexible, unitary standard of 'reasonable care under the circumstances.' This shift aligns New York with a growing modern trend and places greater emphasis on the foreseeability of harm rather than the legal status of the injured party. Future litigation will focus less on classifying the plaintiff and more on a fact-intensive analysis of what constitutes reasonable conduct by the landowner in a specific situation.
Unlock the full brief for Basso v. Miller