All Landowners Only Have To Warn Licensee Rule Applied To Invitees
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Torts1
Example wrong choices
18135_mountain_lodge_looseboard · TORTS · Choice AStrict liability for any injury on the premises.
Why it's attractive
The choice asserts strict liability for any injury on the premises. That is an overclaim — invitee status creates a duty of reasonable care, not automatic liability. Strict liability is a separate doctrine (abnormally dangerous activities, products liability) and is not the default rule for ordinary premises.
Why it's wrong
The choice asserts strict liability for any injury on the premises. That is an overclaim — invitee status creates a duty of reasonable care, not automatic liability. Strict liability is a separate doctrine (abnormally dangerous activities, products liability) and is not the default rule for ordinary premises.
18135_mountain_lodge_looseboard · TORTS · Choice COnly a duty to warn about hazards it actually knew about.
Why it's attractive
The student half-remembers that 'landowners only have to warn' and picks the narrower licensee rule. The Gold Key tells them the warn-only-of-known rule is the licensee standard, not the invitee standard. Mary is a paying attendee (invitee), so the broader inspection duty applies.
Why it's wrong
The student half-remembers that 'landowners only have to warn' and picks the narrower licensee rule. The Gold Key tells them the warn-only-of-known rule is the licensee standard, not the invitee standard. Mary is a paying attendee (invitee), so the broader inspection duty applies.
18135_mountain_lodge_looseboard · TORTS · Choice DNo duty because the retreat center did not create the loose board.
Why it's attractive
The student assumes the duty runs only to hazards the possessor itself caused. Visible from the stem: the floorboard loosened over several days with no inspection schedule — a discoverable hazard, not a possessor-created one. The invitee duty is keyed to discoverable hazards regardless of who caused them.
Why it's wrong
The student assumes the duty runs only to hazards the possessor itself caused. Visible from the stem: the floorboard loosened over several days with no inspection schedule — a discoverable hazard, not a possessor-created one. The invitee duty is keyed to discoverable hazards regardless of who caused them.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →