PERSONAL INJURY LAW: Absence of “No Trespassing” signs held to constitute implied consent to presence on property

The Superior Court holds that a property owner who does not post a “No Trespassing” sign or otherwise restrict entry onto the property can be found to have provided implied consent to a salesperson entering the property.  On the homeowner’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the defendant argued that the door-to-door salesperson was a trespasser.

The Superior Court rejects that argument and holds that issues of fact exist with regard to whether there was implied permission or consent to enter where the property owner did not restrict access or post “No Trespassing” signs.

Basso v. Catapano (August 25, 2015)