Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

Supreme Court of Ohio · Torts

TortsPremises liabilityEntrant statusDuty of careRailroad liabilityJury instructionsDirected verdictJNOV

Facts

Gladon purchased an RTA ticket, rode the rapid transit train, and waited on RTA's platform, where he was an invitee. He then ended up on the tracks, an area that Gladon acknowledged RTA did not permit the public to enter. The trial court instructed the jury that Gladon was an invitee as a matter of law and that RTA had a duty to use ordinary care to discover and avoid danger. Evidence at trial also concerned the train operator's speed, wet tracks, line-of-sight operating rules, and what the operator perceived when she saw a tennis shoe and later Gladon's legs on the tracks.

Issue

When a passenger ends up on train tracks outside the area covered by the landowner's invitation, does he retain invitee status, and what duty does the transit authority owe before and after discovering him? Also, was there enough evidence under the proper duty standards to deny RTA's motions for directed verdict and JNOV?

Rule

In Ohio premises-liability law, entrant status determines the landowner's duty. Where an entrant exceeds the scope of the landowner's invitation, the entrant loses invitee status and becomes either a licensee or trespasser; before discovery, the landowner owes such a person only the duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct likely to injure him and owes no duty to anticipate or discover his presence, but once the landowner knows or from facts within its knowledge should know or believe the person is there in peril, a duty of ordinary care to avoid injuring him arises.

🔒

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 Flores bought a ticket to ride a commuter rail line in St. Louis and waited in the public boarding area. While trying to retrieve a dropped phone, she climbed down into a fenced service trench beside the rails, an area marked for employees only, and was injured by moving equipment before any employee noticed her.

What was Nina's legal status while she was in the service trench?

Explanation. An entrant is an invitee only while on the part of the land to which the invitation extends. Once Nina went into a restricted area not open to the public, she exceeded the scope of the invitation and lost invitee status, becoming either a licensee or trespasser. The majority opinion makes clear that this change in status depends on the absence of privilege to be there, not on payment or general presence on the property. (Derived from Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (n.d.).)