Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu
| Decision Date | 03 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 4679,4679 |
| Citation | 51 Haw. 134,452 P.2d 445 |
| Parties | Thomas L. PICKARD, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Hawaii Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
An occupier of land has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all persons reasonably anticipated to be upon the premises, regardless of the legal status of the individual.
Samuel Landau, Honolulu, for plaintiff-appellant.
Denis C. H. Leong, Deputy Corp. Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, for defendant-appellee.
The undisputed facts are that on the evening of May 15, 1962, plaintiff-appellant went to the Hauula Courthouse and obtained permission to use the restroom from an officer on duty there. The restroom light switch was not working, but being familiar with the layout of the restroom, plaintiff proceeded into the room. He unexpectedly fell through a hole in the floor, suffering injuries for which he sought compensation from the defendant, for failure to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the premises in a safe condition and in providing adequate warning of the hazard in the unlighted restroom. Defendant contended that such duty was not owed to a mere licensee and in the alternative, that plaintiff was contributorily negligent when he entered the restroom in darkness and when the entries were allegedly blocked by lumber and other objects.
The trial judge instructed the jury that plaintiff was a licensee as a matter of law and further instructed them that defendant's only duty was 'not to harm him wilfully or wantonly, or to expose him to danger by active negligence.' Plaintiff appeals from the order entering the verdict for defendant.
We first consider whether the trial court erred in ruling that the plaintiff was a licensee as a matter of law and therefore not entitled to defendant's duty of ordinary care.
We believe that the common law distinctions between classes of persons have no logical relationship to the exercise of reasonable care for the safety of others. We therefore hold that an occupier of land has a duty to use reasonable care for the safety of all persons reasonably anticipated to be upon the premises, regardless of the legal status of the individual.
We are cognizant of the fact that even the land which nurtured the common law rule has rejected the distinction between licensees and invitees. See Occupiers' Liability Act, 5 & 6 Fliz. 2, c. 3 (1957).
In the United States, the first significant rejection of the common law rule was propounded by the United States Supreme Court in Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550 (1959). The question raised was whether maritime law recognized the invitee-licensee distinctions. The court replied at pp. 630-631, 79 S.Ct. at p. 410:
'The distinctions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors
...Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 489 P.2d 308 (1971), aff'g 28 Colo.App. 400, 474 P.2d 796 (1970); Pickard v. Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134, 452 P.2d 445 (1969); Keller v. Mols, 129 Ill.App.3d 208, 84 Ill.Dec. 411, 472 N.E.2d 161 (1984); Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc.......
-
Vega by Muniz v. Piedilato
...classification system. See Webb, supra, 561 P.2d at 733; Rowland, supra, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d at 568; Pickard v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134, 452 P.2d 445, 446 (1969); Cates v. Beauregard Elec. Coop., Inc., 328 So.2d 367, 371(La.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 833, 97 S.Ct. 97, 50......
-
Mounsey v. Ellard
...they arise in future cases.8 See Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108, 70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561 (1968); Pickard v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134, 452 P.2d 445 (1969), Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, Colo., 489 P.2d 308 (1971) (the plaintiff was a police officer), and Smith v. ......
-
Gump v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 21670.
...See, e.g., Kellett, 35 Haw. 447 (1940); Gibo v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 299, 459 P.2d 198 (1969); Pickard v. City & County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134, 452 P.2d 445 (1969); Friedrich v. Dept. of Transportation, 60 Haw. 32, 586 P.2d 1037 (1978); Harris, 1 Haw.App. 554, 623 P.2d 446 (......
-
Premises Liability Law
...F.2d 97 (1972); Webb v. Sitka , 561 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1977); Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich , 175 Colo. 537 (1971); Pickard v. Honolulu , 51 Haw. 134 (Haw. 1969); Cates v. Beauregard Electric Cooperative, Inc. , 328 So. 2d 367 (La. 1976); Ouellette v. Blanchard , 116 N.H. 552 (1976); Baso v......
-
Premise Liability
...of Sitka, 561 P.2d 731 (Alaska 1977); Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 489 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1971); Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu, 452 P.2d 445 (Haw. 1969); Cope v. Doe, 464 N.E.2d 1023 (Ill. 1984)(eliminating the common law distinctions only as to child entrants upon land); Cates v.......
-
Premises Liability
...Rowland v. Christian , 69 Cal.2d 108, 443 P .2d 561 at 568,70 Cal. Rptr. 97 (1968); Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu , 51 Haw. 134,452 P.2d 445 (1969); for additional discussions of case law and statutory rejections of the common law status distinction, see J. Tarantino & D. Oliveira,......
-
Case Notes
...a trespasser. Justice Acoba would have held that the duty to exercise reasonable care set forth in Pickard v. City and County of Honolulu, 51 Haw. 134, 452 P.2d 445 (1969) controls. Under Pickard, an occupier of land has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of all persons known......