{"id":31595,"date":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","date_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/uncategorized\/supreme-court-overturns-premises-liability-standard.html"},"modified":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","modified_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","slug":"supreme-court-overturns-premises-liability-standard","status":"publish","type":"corporate","link":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/business-operations\/supreme-court-overturns-premises-liability-standard.html","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Overturns Premises Liability Standard"},"content":{"rendered":"<section class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline\">\n    <div class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-content\">\n                    <p><em>This article was edited and reviewed by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/company\/our-team.html\" rel=\"noopener\">FindLaw Attorney Writers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n                | Last reviewed\n        <time>\n                            May 18, 2026\n                    <\/time>\n    <\/div>\n\n    \n    <details class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-toggle fl-gutenberg-byline-legally-reviewed\">\n        <summary>\n            <i class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i>\n            Legally Reviewed\n        <\/summary>\n\n        <div class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-toggle-content\">\n            <p><em>This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/company\/our-team.html\" rel=\"noopener\">FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with <a href=\"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/company\/company-history\/editorial-policy.html\" rel=\"noopener\">our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n        <\/div>\n    <\/details>\n\n    <details class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-toggle fl-gutenberg-byline-fast-checked\">\n        <summary>\n            <i class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-icon\" aria-hidden=\"true\"><\/i>\n            Fact-Checked\n        <\/summary>\n\n        <div class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-toggle-content\">\n            <p><em>The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/company\/our-team\/contributing-authors.html\" rel=\"noopener\">contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please <a href=\"https:\/\/lawyers.findlaw.com\/?fli=bylinelink\" rel=\"noopener\">contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n        <\/div>\n    <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"rxbodyfield\" xmlns:o=\"urn:www.microsoft.com\/office\" xmlns:st1=\"urn:www.microsoft.com\/smarttags\" xmlns:w=\"urn:www.microsoft.com\/word\" xmlns:x=\"urn:www.microsoft.com\/excel\"><p>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 <u>Nelson v. Freeland<\/u> (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 &#39;reasonable standard of care&#39; 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 &#39;reasonable care&#39; in the maintenance of their premises for the protection of lawful visitors.<\/p><p>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&#39;s presence, and to require the landowner to do so would place an unfair burden on the landowner.<\/p><p><u>Risk Handling Hint<\/u>: This decision alters the fundamental principles of premises liability and may effect subrogation issues in workers&#39; compensation claims.<\/p><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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 &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":true,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"corporate_categories":[6467,6471,6473],"class_list":["post-31595","corporate","type-corporate","status-publish","hentry","corporate_categories-business-operations","corporate_categories-business-operations__property","corporate_categories-business-operations__property__real-property"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate\/31595","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/corporate"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=31595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"corporate_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate_categories?post=31595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}