Trespasser with Implied Consent? Premises Liability Case

The defendants move for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff, the defendants’ nextdoor neighbor, alleges that a pool toy belonging to the defendants blew into the plaintiff’s backyard. The plaintiff picked up the pool toy and attempted to return it when she lost her balance and fell due to a ditch located on the defendants’ premises.

Trespasser or Licensee? Neighbor Injured Returning Pool Toy

At the plaintiff’s deposition, she admitted that she did not speak to the defendants before entering their property. Accordingly, the defendants argue that the plaintiff was a trespasser, and they did not owe her a duty of care to keep the premises reasonably safe. Connecticut’s premises liability law has long provided that the status of the entrant, whether a trespasser, licensee, or invitee, determines the duty owed to the entrant while he or she is on a landowner’s property. A trespasser is one who enters upon land without the consent of the possessor to do so. A landowner ordinarily owes no duty to a trespasser to keep the property in a reasonable safe condition for their use. A licensee is a person who is privileged to enter to remain upon land by virtue of the possessor’s consent. A landowner does not ordinarily owe a licensee a duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition but instead must use reasonable care both to refrain from activity subjecting the licensee to danger and to warn the licensee of dangerous conditions. Lastly, a landowner has a duty to an invitee to reasonably inspect and maintain the premises in order to render them reasonably safe and warn an invitee of dangers that the invitee could not reasonably be expected to discover.

Implied Consent Key to Determining Landowner’s Duty of Care

The plaintiff claims that she had implied permission or an implied invitation as an invitee or licensee to enter the defendants’ premises to return the pool toy. The Connecticut Supreme Court has explained that a person might be found to have been impliedly invited if he or she was in pursuance of a mutual interest. The plaintiff claims that the invitation to enter the premises was implied because she was in pursuance of a matter of mutual interest. Although the record establishes that the defendants did not directly invite the plaintiff onto the premises, the record does not conclusively establish whether there was implied consent or permission to enter the premises. Because these facts remain in dispute, the court denies the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Paoletta V. Rey, No. NNH-CV-23-6129925-S, 2025 WL 88348 (Conn. Super. Ct. Jan. 8, 2025).