Bowers v. Ottenad

Supreme Court of Kansas · 1986 · Torts

TortsPremises liabilityLicenseesActive negligencetrespasserlicenseeinviteepremises liability

Facts

Bowers attended a social dinner at the home of Richard and Joyce Ottenad as one of three co-hostesses for the evening. After dinner, Bowers, Gerald Petersen, and Richard Ottenad were preparing flaming Irish coffees using 190-proof grain alcohol. The alcohol vapors ignited, creating a fireball that struck Bowers and caused severe burns. Her injuries were caused by the drink-mixing activity, not by any defective or dangerous condition of the property itself.

Issue

Should Kansas abandon the traditional premises-liability status classification doctrine for licensees and adopt ordinary negligence, or, alternatively, recognize an active-negligence exception under which a licensee injured by activities conducted on the premises is owed reasonable care?

Rule

Kansas retains the traditional common-law premises liability doctrine based on the injured person's status as trespasser, licensee, or invitee. However, Kansas recognizes an active negligence exception: when a licensee, whose presence is known or should be known, is injured by an affirmative activity conducted on the property by the occupier, the occupier owes a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances; when injury results from the condition of the premises, the occupier owes only a duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring the licensee.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel attended a backyard cookout at Owen Mercer’s home in Wichita, Kansas, as a social guest. While Owen was carrying a lit charcoal chimney across the patio, he tripped and spilled hot coals onto Nina, badly burning her.

If Nina sues Owen in Kansas, which duty most likely governs Owen’s conduct?

Explanation. Kansas retained the traditional trespasser-licensee-invitee framework. But when a licensee whose presence is known or should be known is injured by an affirmative activity conducted on the property by the occupier, the occupier owes reasonable care under the circumstances. Nina is a social guest and thus a licensee, and her injury arose from Owen’s activity of carrying hot coals, not from a condition of the land. (Derived from Bowers v. Ottenad (n.d.).)