Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority
75 Ohio St. 3d 312, 662 N.E.2d 287 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who enters another's land as an invitee loses that status and becomes a licensee or trespasser if they go outside the area of invitation, regardless of whether their entry into the uninvited area was intentional, negligent, or accidental. Consequently, the landowner's duty of care is reduced from ordinary care to only refraining from willful or wanton conduct until the person is discovered in a position of peril, at which point a duty of ordinary care arises.
Facts:
- Robert M. Gladon attended a Cleveland Indians baseball game.
- After the game, Gladon purchased a fare to ride a Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (RTA) train.
- Gladon rode the train to the West 65th Street station and exited onto the platform.
- While on the platform, two unidentified men assaulted Gladon.
- The assailants left Gladon lying injured on the RTA's train tracks.
- An RTA train operated by Mary Bell approached the station.
- The operator initially saw a peculiar object, then realized it was a tennis shoe, then a leg attached to the shoe.
- The operator attempted to brake but was unable to stop the train before it struck Gladon, causing severe and permanent injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert M. Gladon sued the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) in an Ohio trial court for negligence.
- At the conclusion of trial, the judge instructed the jury, as a matter of law, that Gladon was an invitee on RTA's property.
- The jury returned a verdict for Gladon, awarding him $2,736,915.35.
- The trial court denied RTA's motion to reduce the award for pain and suffering pursuant to a statutory cap, finding the statute unconstitutional.
- RTA, as appellant, appealed to the intermediate court of appeals.
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of Ohio then accepted a discretionary appeal filed by RTA.
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 person who enters land as a business invitee lose that status and become a trespasser or licensee when they are subsequently found in an area beyond the scope of the landowner's invitation, even if their presence in that area is the result of an accident or the criminal act of a third party?
Opinions:
Majority - Cook, J.
Yes. Where an entrant upon another’s land exceeds the scope of the landowner’s invitation, the entrant will lose the status of an invitee and become either a licensee or a trespasser. This change in status occurs regardless of whether the entry into the restricted area was intentional, negligent, or purely accidental. While Gladon was an invitee on the RTA platform, RTA's invitation did not extend to the train tracks. Once on the tracks, Gladon became a trespasser, and RTA's duty of care changed. Before discovering Gladon, RTA only had a duty to refrain from willful or wanton conduct. This duty elevated to one of ordinary care only after the operator knew or should have known Gladon was on the tracks in a position of peril. Because the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury that Gladon was an invitee as a matter of law, imposing a constant duty of ordinary care, the instruction was prejudicial error requiring a new trial.
Dissenting - Douglas, J.
No. An invitee's legal status should not be magically transformed into that of a trespasser or licensee as a consequence of the intervening criminal acts of a third party. The majority's holding takes the common-law entrant classification system to a new level of absurdity and produces a harsh, unjust result. Gladon was a paying customer and did not voluntarily enter the track area. The majority avoids the real issue of the case, which is the constitutionality of R.C. 2744.05(C)'s cap on non-economic damages, by relying on a flawed and archaic premises liability analysis. The trial court correctly instructed the jury, as there was no evidence suggesting Gladon was anything other than a business invitee.
Concurring - Wright, J.
Yes. The majority correctly applies the longstanding principle of constitutional avoidance by resolving the case on the non-constitutional grounds of the erroneous jury instruction. The dissent's attack on the common-law duty classifications is misplaced, as these rules are the result of generations of legal experience. Furthermore, the dissent mischaracterizes the core legal issue. Since sovereign immunity existed at common law, a plaintiff has no inherent common-law right to sue a political subdivision, and therefore the legislature has the authority to define the contours of such lawsuits, including placing caps on damages.
Concurring - Nader, J.
Yes, but only in the judgment for a new trial. I do not agree that Gladon's status automatically changed to trespasser as a matter of law simply because of his involuntary presence on the tracks. The evidence was not so determinative as to support a finding of either invitee or trespasser as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial court erred not by choosing the wrong status, but by taking the question of Gladon's legal status away from the jury. This issue should have been submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms Ohio's strict adherence to the traditional common-law classifications of entrant status in premises liability law. It establishes that an entrant's legal status is determined by their physical location on the property in relation to the scope of the invitation, irrespective of the reason for their presence in a restricted area. The ruling solidifies a high bar for plaintiffs injured in off-limits areas, as they must prove willful or wanton misconduct by the landowner rather than simple negligence. This precedent makes recovery more difficult for individuals who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in a dangerous, uninvited part of a property.
Unlock the full brief for Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority