Heins v. Webster

Supreme Court of Nebraska · 1996 · Torts

TortsPremises liabilitypremises liabilityinviteelicenseetrespasserreasonable carelawful entrants

Facts

After a heavy snowfall, Heins went to Webster County Hospital in Red Cloud with his wife and daughter and later fell while exiting through the hospital's main entrance. He testified that he slipped on ice on the landing outside the door and injured his back. He sued the county, alleging negligent inspection, warning, accumulation, and removal of ice and snow. The trial court found that Heins had gone to the hospital to visit his daughter, an employee, and therefore treated him as a licensee.

Issue

Should Nebraska abolish the common-law distinction between licensees and invitees and instead require landowners and occupiers to exercise reasonable care toward all lawful entrants? If so, should that rule apply to Heins' claim?

Rule

Nebraska abolishes the common-law distinction between invitees and licensees. Owners and occupiers of land owe a duty to exercise reasonable care in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of all lawful visitors, while trespassers remain subject to a separate classification. In evaluating reasonable care, relevant factors include: (1) foreseeability or possibility of harm; (2) the entrant's purpose; (3) the time, manner, and circumstances of entry; (4) the use of the premises; (5) the reasonableness of inspection, repair, or warning; (6) the opportunity and ease of repair, correction, or warning; and (7) the burden on the occupier and/or community in inconvenience or cost.

🔒

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.

In Omaha, Nora Patel stopped by Riverbend Medical Center to drop off homemade soup for her cousin, who worked there as a night receptionist. As Nora walked through the main lobby toward the elevators, she tripped over a loose floor mat and was injured. The center argues Nora was merely a social guest, not on business with the facility.

What duty did the occupier owe Nora?

Explanation. The majority abolished the invitee-licensee distinction for lawful entrants. Owners and occupiers owe reasonable care in maintaining premises for all lawful visitors. Nora's social purpose may matter in evaluating breach, but it does not reduce duty. The opinion also makes clear landowners are not insurers, so strict liability is incorrect. (Derived from Heins v. Webster (n.d.).)