Rowland v. Christian

Supreme Court of California · 1968 · Torts

Tortspremises liabilitydutyinviteelicenseetrespasserCivil Code section 1714ordinary care

Facts

Plaintiff alleged that while visiting defendant's apartment as her social guest, he injured his hand when a cracked porcelain bathroom faucet handle broke as he turned off the faucet. Defendant had known for about two weeks that the handle was cracked and had told the building manager it should be replaced, but nothing was done. Plaintiff's opposing affidavit stated that defendant did not warn him about the cracked handle before he used the bathroom. The record did not establish that the crack was obvious, and plaintiff could prove it was concealed.

Issue

Whether a land possessor's duty to a social guest is limited by the common law licensee classification so that defendant could not be liable as a matter of law, or whether ordinary negligence principles under Civil Code section 1714 govern. Also, whether summary judgment was proper on this record.

Rule

Under Civil Code section 1714, the proper test for liability of a possessor of land is whether in the management of the property the possessor acted as a reasonable person in view of the probability of injury to others. The plaintiff's status as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee may bear on liability in light of the facts giving rise to that status, but status is not determinative. A departure from the general duty of ordinary care should not be made absent statutory provision unless clearly supported by public policy, evaluated through factors including foreseeability of harm, certainty of injury, closeness of connection, moral blame, policy of preventing future harm, burden and community consequences, and insurance availability, cost, and prevalence.

🔒

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 Sacramento, Elena Torres invited her neighbor, Malik Grant, into her townhouse to borrow a ladder. Elena knew that a metal strip at the top of her basement steps had come loose beneath the carpet and could catch a shoe, but she said nothing; Malik tripped there and fractured his wrist.

If Malik sues Elena, which is the best statement of the duty issue?

Explanation. The majority held that liability of a possessor of land is tested under Civil Code section 1714 by whether the possessor acted as a reasonable person in view of the probability of injury to others. The plaintiff's status as trespasser, licensee, or invitee may have some bearing in light of the facts creating that status, but it is not determinative. Thus Malik's social-guest status does not eliminate ordinary negligence analysis.