Talk:Rowland v. Christian

Merit of this decision
The 2 dissenting judges warned that this decision would unleash a torrent of widened liability, and the article should address whether this has in fact occurred, or is liklet to occur. On the face of it the decision implies that a landowner owes the same duty of care to a trespasser as to an invitee, which seems ridiculous. For example, someone could decide that their land is so dangerous that they cannot safely invite any visitors. But under this decision, such exemplary caution would be pointless. Does the interpretation mean that someone who trespasses with the intention to murder the owner could sue that owner if they trip and fall on their way to the planned murder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulhummerman (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems so, alas.

Such an analysis is needed in this article.

Zezen (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)