Legal Opinion · Dissent

Smith v. Smith

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided December 13, 2018No. 2017-SC-000348-DGPublished

1Dissent

MINTON, C.J., DISSENTING:

Today the Court chooses to retain status-based distinctions for entrants to land *20in assessing landowner liability and, in so doing, has further distanced itself from a concept of modern tort law that nearly half of the states have adopted in some form. Because I would instead abandon the distinction between licensees and invitees in favor of a unitary duty of reasonable care owed to all non-trespassing entrants, I respectfully dissent.

The common-law distinctions have faced heavy criticism by American courts, beginning with the United States Supreme Court's decision in…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Rowland v. ChristianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  2. Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale TransatlantiqueSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. Michelle RYE Et Al. v. WOMEN’S CARE CENTER OF MEMPHIS, MPLLC Et Al.Tennessee Supreme Court · 2015
  4. Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc.Kentucky Supreme Court · 2013
  5. Nelson v. FreelandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API