Heins v. Webster County

Supreme Court of Nebraska
552 N.W.2d 51 (1996)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landowner's duty of care to an entrant on the land is not to be determined by the entrant's status as a licensee or invitee. A landowner owes a single duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors.

Facts:

On October 31, 1991, Webster County, Nebraska, experienced a heavy snowfall, and significant accumulation remained on November 5.
On November 5, 1991, Roger W. Heins visited the Webster County Hospital, which was operated by Webster County.
Heins went to the hospital to visit his daughter, Julie, who was the director of nursing.
Heins also contended that part of the purpose of his visit was to coordinate his playing Santa Claus for the hospital staff during the upcoming Christmas season.
While exiting the hospital through the main entrance, Heins slipped and fell, sustaining an injury to his back.
Heins and his daughter Jill, who was with him, saw a patch of ice on the landing where he fell and attributed the fall to the ice.

Procedural Posture:

Roger W. Heins sued Webster County in the district court for Webster County, alleging negligence under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act.
Following a bench trial, the district court found that Heins was a licensee at the time of his fall.
The trial court determined that the county had not acted with willful or wanton negligence and entered a judgment in favor of Webster County.
Heins, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Nebraska Supreme 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 owe a single duty of reasonable care to all lawful entrants on their property, thereby abolishing the common-law distinction between licensees and invitees?

Opinions:

Majority - Connolly, J.

Yes. A landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to all lawful visitors, and the common-law distinction between licensees and invitees is abolished. The traditional classification scheme is an arbitrary system that leads to unjust results, where the legal protection afforded a person depends on a 'pigeonhole' status rather than on the foreseeability of the injury. Modern society has evolved beyond the feudal-era principles that gave rise to these distinctions. Adopting a single standard of reasonable care for all lawful entrants focuses on the foreseeability of the harm and eliminates the confusion and unpredictability of the old categories, without imposing an undue burden on landowners. The trespasser classification is retained because those who enter land without permission are not entitled to the same level of protection.

Dissenting - Fahrnbruch, J.

No. The common-law classifications of licensee and invitee should be retained. The majority opinion dismantles a longstanding, stable, and predictable area of common law that is still followed by most states. Forcing a landowner to treat a social guest (licensee) with the same high standard of care as a business visitor (invitee) is an unfair burden that socializes the use of private property. This judicial change in public policy creates liability where none previously existed, a function that should be left to the legislature. It will expose homeowners and institutions to new lawsuits from uninvited visitors who were previously owed a much lower standard of care.

Analysis:

This decision marks a significant modernization of Nebraska's premises liability law, moving it from a rigid, status-based framework to a more flexible tort standard centered on foreseeability and reasonableness. By abolishing the licensee-invitee distinction, the court aligned Nebraska with a growing minority of jurisdictions that have reformed this area of law. The ruling increases the duty of care landowners owe to social guests and other non-business visitors, making it easier for such plaintiffs to bring negligence claims and harder for landowners to obtain summary judgment based on the visitor's status alone. Future litigation in this area will now focus on the multi-factor reasonableness test established by the court rather than on classifying the entrant.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Heins v. Webster County (1996)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature