Talk:Rowland v. Christian

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Merit of this decision edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)Reply

Seems so, alas.

Such an analysis is needed in this article.

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

Add topic