Supreme Court Overturns Premises Liability Standard

Historically, North Carolina has observed a distinction between licensees and invitees with regard to the standard of care owed to lawful visitors in premises liability cases. In Nelson v. Freeland (citation omitted), the Supreme Court has now abandoned the rule differentiating between the standards of care owed to licensees and invitees, following what it described as a nationwide trend. The Court ruled that a 'reasonable standard of care' is owed to all lawful visitors, whether licensee or invitee. It also noted that owners and occupiers of land are not insurers of their premises, and the Court does not intend for owners and occupiers of land to undergo unwarranted burdens in maintaining their premises. However, the Court has imposed upon them the duty to exercise 'reasonable care' in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of lawful visitors.

The Supreme Court went on to explain that there still exists a separate classification for trespassers, as a landowner has no reason to expect a trespasser's presence, and to require the landowner to do so would place an unfair burden on the landowner.

Risk Handling Hint: This decision alters the fundamental principles of premises liability and may effect subrogation issues in workers' compensation claims.