Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantappealtrialwill
trialwill

Related Cases

In re Viviano, 645 So.2d 1301, 93-1368 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/17/94)
View Case »
Luster v. Retail Credit Co., 575 F.2d 609, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 277
View Case »
McCullough v. McAnelly, 248 So.2d 7
View Case »
Nielsen v. Adams, 223 Neb. 262, 388 N.W.2d 840
View Case »
Nance v. McClellan, 126 Tex. 580, 89 S.W.2d 774, 106 A.L.R. 117
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Sohn v. Katz, 112 N.J.L. 106, 27 Gummere 106, 169 A. 838, 90 A.L.R. 880

Facts

William Sohn was injured on September 9, 1931, when he fell from a ladder that was struck by a car owned by Harry Katz and driven by his son Herbert. The Katz family lived in a residence owned by Rose Katz, Harry's wife, and the family occupied the property in a domestic relationship. Sohn was painting a neighboring house and had placed his ladder on the Katz property when the accident occurred. The trial court initially ruled that the defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to Sohn, but this was contested on appeal.

The action grew out of personal injuries received by William Sohn on September 9, 1931, in falling from a ladder which had been struck by the Katz family automobile, owned by Harry and driven by Herbert.

Issue

Did the trial court err in ruling that Harry Katz owed a duty of reasonable care to William Sohn, a mere licensee, rather than only a duty to abstain from willful and wanton injury?

The substantial question, amply saved by exceptions, is whether the court, in its rulings and charge, was correct in the legal proposition that Harry Katz was under the duty to exercise reasonable care towards Sohn, at best a mere licensee; for the entire case, as it went to the jury, was bound to that concept.

Rule

The general rule is that a landowner owes no duty to a licensee or trespasser except to refrain from willfully injurious acts.

The general rule with regard to the duty which a landowner owes to persons coming upon his premises is that where the entry is made by his invitation, either express or implied, he is required to use reasonable care to have his premises in a safe condition; but that where the entry is made merely by his permission (and, a fortiori, where it is an actual trespass) the landowner is under no obligation to keep his premises in a nonhazardous state; his only duty to a licensee or a trespasser is to abstain from acts willfully injurious.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between the Katz family and the plaintiff, determining that Harry Katz, as the husband and occupant of the family residence, was subject to the same legal principles as a landowner. The court concluded that the duty owed to Sohn, as a licensee, was limited to abstaining from willful and wanton acts, and that the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding reasonable care was incorrect.

The duty, and the only duty, of Harry Katz, the owner's husband, as occupant of the property, towards Sohn, a mere licensee, was to abstain from acts willfully injurious. The learned trial court misconceived the pertinent legal principle.

Conclusion

The court reversed the judgment of the lower court and awarded a venire de novo, indicating that the case should be retried under the correct legal standard.

The judgment below will be reversed, to the end that a venire de novo may be awarded.

Who won?

Harry Katz and Herbert Katz prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the trial court had misapplied the legal standard regarding the duty owed to a licensee.

You must be