Rowland v. Christian
69 Cal.2d 108 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A possessor of land is subject to liability for injuries caused by a failure to exercise reasonable care in the management of their property, irrespective of the injured person's legal status as an invitee, licensee, or trespasser.
Facts:
- Nancy Christian was the lessee of an apartment.
- Christian knew the cold water faucet handle in her bathroom was cracked and had reported it to her lessors for replacement two weeks prior to the incident.
- On November 30, 1963, James Rowland was a social guest in Christian's apartment.
- Christian did not warn Rowland about the cracked and dangerous condition of the faucet handle.
- While Rowland was using the bathroom, the porcelain faucet handle broke in his hand.
- The broken handle severed tendons and nerves in Rowland's right hand, causing significant injury.
Procedural Posture:
- James Rowland filed a personal injury action against Nancy Christian in the California trial court.
- Christian filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that Rowland was a social guest to whom she owed only a limited duty of care.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Christian.
- Rowland, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of California.
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 a person injured on the property depend on that person's legal status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee?
Opinions:
Majority - Peters, J.
No. A person's status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee is not determinative of the duty of care owed by a possessor of land; instead, the proper standard is whether the possessor has acted as a reasonable person in managing the property in view of the probability of injury to others. The court reasoned that the common law classifications are historical artifacts from feudalism that are arbitrary, complex, and often lead to unjust results in modern society. California Civil Code § 1714 establishes a fundamental policy that everyone is responsible for injuries caused by their lack of ordinary care in managing their property. The court held that departing from this fundamental principle for entrants on land is no longer justified. Instead of relying on rigid classifications, liability should be determined by balancing factors such as the foreseeability of harm, the certainty of injury, and the burden of preventing the harm. The plaintiff's status may have some bearing on foreseeability but does not define the existence of a duty.
Dissenting - Burke, J.
Yes. The traditional distinctions between trespassers, licensees, and invitees should be upheld as they provide a reasonable, stable, and predictable framework for determining a landowner's liability. The dissent argued that these classifications supply workable guiding principles that the majority's case-by-case negligence approach lacks. It is reasonable to expect a social guest (licensee) to take the premises as they find them, and a homeowner should not be obligated to warn of every potential danger. The majority's decision opens the door to potentially unlimited liability for homeowners. Such a sweeping modification of tort law is a matter for the Legislature, not the judiciary, to decide.
Analysis:
This landmark decision abolished the rigid common law classifications of invitee, licensee, and trespasser for determining landowner liability in California. It replaced the status-based duties with a single, unified standard of reasonable care under all the circumstances, a rule which has since been adopted by numerous other jurisdictions. While the entrant's status is no longer determinative, it remains a relevant factor in assessing the foreseeability of harm and the reasonableness of the landowner's conduct. This ruling fundamentally shifted premises liability law from a focus on property rights and entrant status to a focus on general negligence principles and foreseeability.
