| Venue: | NE SC |
| Facts: | Roger Heins is going to visit his daughter who works at the hospital, and maybe make plans to play Santa there. When leaving, he slips and falls. |
| Posture: | Judgment for the defendant at trial, because Heins was a licensee, not an invitee. |
| Issue: | Should the court abolish the whole licensee/invitee distinction and simply require a duty of reasonable care to all nontrespassors? |
| Holding: | Yes. Remanded for new trial. |
| Rule: | The licensee/invitee distinction leads to absurd results: we should have one duty of care to all lawful visitors, and the foreseeability of the injury should be the controlling factor. |
| Reasoning: | Recovery shouldn't be a matter of chance: if he'd been there to visit a patient, or to buy a soda, he'd have prevailed. Because he was there to visit his daughter, he loses. Someone's life and welfare don't become less worthy of protection because of the purpose of a lawful visit. The special immunity conferred by the licensee/invitee distinction is antiquated, and doesn't make sense any more. Lots of other jurisdictions are abolishing it, too. |
| Dicta: | (Dissent) This court shouldn't be creating liability where the law doesn't specify it, and shouldn't be socializing the use of privately owned property. |