What is the difference between an invitee and a licensee?

An invitee is on the property for a purpose connected to the owner's business (customer in a store). A licensee is there for their own purpose with the owner's permission (social guest). Invitees are owed the highest duty — to inspect for and warn of unknown hazards. Licensees are owed a duty only as to known hazards.

Are trespassers ever owed any duty?

Limited. Most states impose only a duty to not willfully or wantonly harm. The attractive nuisance doctrine creates an exception for child trespassers when the property contains something dangerous that children predictably investigate (swimming pools, abandoned appliances).

Have most states abolished the invitee/licensee distinction?

About 25 states have moved to a unified reasonable-care standard regardless of status, following the lead of Rowland v. Christian (Cal. 1968). The other half continue to apply traditional status categories. The distinction often controls whether a case survives summary judgment.

Guide

Premises liability, explained.

The duty a property owner owes you depends on why you were there. In traditional states, the invitee/licensee/trespasser categories control. In unified states, a single reasonable-care standard applies.

The three traditional categories

Status	Who fits	Duty owed
Invitee	Business visitor, customer, public-property user	Inspect for unknown hazards; fix or warn
Licensee	Social guest, anyone with permission for their own purpose	Warn of known hazards; no duty to inspect
Trespasser	Unauthorized entrant	No willful or wanton harm; attractive-nuisance exception for children

The unified-duty states

About 25 states have abolished or modified the category system, following Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968). In these states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida for non-trespassers, Massachusetts, New York, and others), a single reasonable-care duty applies. The plaintiff's status is a factor in the reasonableness analysis but not a categorical bar.

Why the category matters

In traditional states, a licensee (social guest) who slips on a hazard the homeowner did not actually know about will lose, because no duty to inspect attaches. The same fall, with the same hazard, in a unified-duty state survives summary judgment because a jury can find a reasonable owner would have known. The procedural impact of status is bigger than its substantive impact at trial.

Attractive nuisance

Across all jurisdictions, child trespassers are treated differently when the property contains a condition that is dangerous, that children are likely to investigate, that the owner knows about, and that the owner can address at slight cost. Swimming pools, construction sites, and abandoned equipment are the recurring fact patterns. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339 codifies the rule.

Check your claim

Free, confidential, no obligation.

Start case review

Frequently asked questions

Sources

[1]Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 332–343A — Cornell Legal Information Institute
[2]Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 — California Supreme Court
[3]Premises Liability — overview — Cornell Legal Information Institute