Also known as: landowner invitee · landowner-invitees · invitee · premises liability invitee
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A special relationship between a possessor of land and an invitee that imposes on the possessor a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitee from physical harm on the premises.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Lorenzo Lugo bought a ticket and entered the stadium owned by Star Fitness. He climbed onto a low railing despite visible warnings after the crowd surged forward during a key play. Star Fitness faces liability because its failure to anticipate the risk to ticket holders in a public facility overrides the obviousness of the danger.
Luna Lang entered Peak Trade to buy a television and climbed a rack after waiting for unavailable staff. The heavy boxes fell and injured her. Peak Trade remains liable because the store's merchandising and staffing decisions made the harm foreseeable to public shoppers despite posted signs.
Lila Lin bought a ticket and arrived early at the festival site. She fell into an uncovered trench while seeking a better viewing spot near the stage. National Media owes a duty because the open gate and public invitation to the event made the risk to ticket holders reasonably anticipatable.
Lucas Lee accompanied his parent to a store and wandered into an area with exposed wiring. The child suffered burns after touching the hazard. The store is liable because the invitee status of the accompanying adult extends protection to the child even if the danger would not trigger liability to a trespasser.
Logan Lane visited a homeowner's backyard at the owner's request to help with repairs. He stepped on a rotted board that collapsed. The homeowner owes a duty of care because the modern approach rejects rigid status categories and focuses on the foreseeability of harm to a lawful visitor.
Legacy Motors sent bulk messages through CompuServe's servers after receiving explicit notice that such use was prohibited. CompuServe blocked the messages and faced a trespass claim. The court treated the servers as land held open only to authorized users, so the sender lost any invitee protection once consent was withdrawn.
A possessor of land owes an invitee a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises safe or to warn of known dangers that are not obvious. This duty arises because the invitee enters for a purpose connected to the land's public or business use. The duty extends to conditions the possessor should anticipate despite the invitee's knowledge.
An invitee enters by invitation for a public or business purpose tied to the land's use. A licensee enters with permission but for the licensee's own purpose. A trespasser enters without consent. The landowner owes the highest duty to an invitee and the lowest to a trespasser.
…rule of liability for negligence has been accomplished by classifying the plaintiff either as a trespasser, licensee, or invitee and then adopting special rules as to the duty owed by the possessor to each of the classifications. Generally speaking a trespasser is a person who enters or remains upon land of another…
…Similarly, in Sharkey v. Board of Regents , 260 Neb. 166, 182, 615 N.W.2d 889, 902 (2000), we held that a university "owes a landowner-invitee
…under Ohio law. See, e.g. , State v. Carriker , 5 Ohio App. 2d 255, 214 N.E.2d 809 (1964) (the law in Ohio is that a business invitee
…v. Carriker , 5 Ohio App.2d 255, 214 N.E.2d 809, 811-12 (1964) (interpreting Ohio criminal trespass law to cover a business invitee
…principles of landowner liability
Liability persists if the possessor should anticipate that the invitee will encounter the danger anyway. Factors include the land's public character and the invitee's entitlement to use the facilities. Prior incidents or design defects that encourage risky behavior support anticipation of harm.
Yes. When a possessor would be liable to a child trespasser under the attractive nuisance doctrine, the same possessor is liable if the child is a licensee or invitee. The child's status therefore raises rather than lowers the duty of care.
Some jurisdictions have abandoned rigid status distinctions in favor of a general reasonable-care standard based on foreseeability. The shift treats the relationship as one factor among others rather than a conclusive limit on duty.