Jones v. Hansen
867 P.2d 303, 1994 Kan. LEXIS 10, 254 Kan. 499 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The duty owed by an occupier of land to licensees shall no longer be dependent upon the status of the entrant, but rather a duty of reasonable care under all circumstances is owed to both invitees and licensees, while the common-law duty to trespassers remains to refrain from wilfully, wantonly, or recklessly injuring them.
Facts:
- Mrs. Jones was invited to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Hansen to play bridge.
- While playing, Mrs. Jones began looking at the Hansens' artwork.
- Mrs. Hansen informed Mrs. Jones that there were more paintings in an adjacent, dimly lit room.
- Mrs. Jones entered the dimly lit room without asking where a light switch was, and only one floor lamp was illuminated, despite other lighting options being available.
- As Mrs. Jones walked sideways around the room, she fell down a flight of stairs and was severely injured.
- The stairwell was partially blocked on two sides by a 33-inch-high bookcase that the Hansens had placed there.
- Three paintings had been hung on the wall above the stairwell at that location since 1977.
- No one other than Mrs. Jones had previously been injured on that stairway.
Procedural Posture:
- Mrs. Jones (plaintiff) filed a premises liability action against Mr. and Mrs. Hansen (defendants) in the District Court (trial court) for injuries sustained on their property.
- Jones's petition alleged that the Hansens' actions constituted wanton conduct and active negligence.
- The Hansens denied these allegations and filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hansens, concluding that they did not breach the duty to refrain from wilfully, wantonly, or recklessly injuring Jones, and that her injury was not caused by an 'activity' on the premises.
- Mrs. Jones appealed the summary judgment to the Kansas 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 Kansas law abandon the common-law distinction between invitees and licensees in premises liability actions and adopt a standard of reasonable care under all circumstances for both classifications?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, J.
Yes, Kansas law should change by abandoning the common-law distinction between invitees and licensees and adopting a standard of reasonable care under all circumstances for both. The court finds the common-law classifications rigid and inconsistent with modern social mores and humanitarian values, which unduly protect property interests at the expense of human safety. Although previous cases like Gerchberg (1978) and Britt (1982) rejected this change, the court acknowledges that Bowers (1986) recognized an "active negligence" exception, indicating a shift towards a negligence standard for certain activities. The court believes that judges and juries are fully capable of applying a "reasonable care under the circumstances" standard in premises liability cases, as they do in other tort actions, with the foreseeability of injury being the primary determinant of liability. The court adopts an intermediate position, abolishing the distinctions and duties owed to invitees and licensees, but retaining the common-law rule for trespassers—to refrain from wilfully, wantonly, or recklessly injuring them. This new rule will be applied prospectively, with the exception of the parties in the current action, who will have their case remanded for further proceedings under the new standard.
Dissenting - McFarland, J.
No, the court should not change Kansas premises liability law regarding the duty owed to licensees. The majority's decision constitutes an abandonment of the crucial doctrine of stare decisis, which mandates adherence to established precedent unless prior decisions are clearly erroneous or conditions have materially changed. The majority's justification of "modern social mores" is vague and insufficient to demonstrate a material change warranting departure from the court's repeated reaffirmations of the traditional classifications (e.g., Gerchberg (1978), Britt (1982), Bowers (1986)). The traditional classifications are practical and reflect fundamental differences between businesses, which invite the public, and private residences, where social guests are present informally. Imposing a higher duty of care on homeowners would lead to increased liability and, consequently, higher insurance premiums. Furthermore, the majority's decision is not in line with a modern trend, as many states have reaffirmed the traditional classifications since the 1980s, indicating that Kansas is "swimming against the stream of current opinion."
Dissenting - Six, J.
No, the court should not change Kansas premises liability law, and moreover, the issue itself was not properly preserved for appellate review. Mrs. Jones's petition and her arguments in response to the summary judgment motion primarily focused on alleging wanton conduct and active negligence under existing law, not on advocating for a change in the underlying legal classifications. A brief oral argument by counsel expressing a desire for change, without citing authority or requesting a specific ruling, is insufficient to preserve such a significant issue for appeal, as established in Enlow v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. The court should not unilaterally make a major policy change without a proper record or inviting amicus curiae briefs from interested associations. Furthermore, the decision to overrule established law violates the principles of stare decisis and disregards the prudential and pragmatic considerations for overturning precedent, as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The majority is endorsing a minority view among jurisdictions, which undermines the stability and certainty of the law.
Analysis:
This case marks a pivotal shift in Kansas premises liability law, moving away from rigid common-law distinctions for invited guests. By eliminating the separate duties owed to licensees and invitees and unifying them under a single standard of 'reasonable care under all the circumstances,' the court aligns Kansas with a growing, albeit still minority, trend among states. This change elevates the foreseeability of harm as the central determinant of liability over the visitor's status, potentially leading to increased homeowner liability and requiring more fact-intensive inquiries by juries. The robust dissenting opinions underscore the inherent tension between judicial evolution of law and the principle of stare decisis, particularly when public policy changes are not universally accepted or explicitly detailed by the court.
