Let’s say a policewoman slips & falls in person’s home while executing a search warrant. The homeowner is not present during the search. Is the homeowner legally liable for her injuries in any way, even if they did not invite her in?
In almost all cases, no. The police officer is not an invitee, a licencee, or a trespasser, which are the three categories of visitors for purposes of premises liability. Unless the homeowner maintains their property in an unreasonably dangerous condition, the homeowner would not be liable for the injury to the officer.
Here is an article on general premises liability law, including definitions of “invitee,” “licensee,” and “trespasser.”
the cop is most likely going to come under the firefighter rule, which is akin to being a licensee. You have to be one of the three.
There are very few instances where a police officer can sue while in performance of his duties. The OP wouldn’t be one of them. There has to be some reckless action on the part of the other party. The only two cases that I am personally familiar with both involved motor vehicles. In one case an officer I know was sitting in his car behind an accident pulled onto the shoulder. He was struck from behind. The other case an officer was out of his car directing traffic around a downed tree. He was run over by a drunk. In both cases they each successfully sued. Otherwise if it happens during the normal course of his duties, the officer can not sue.
Frightening though it may be to contradict Jodi on a legal matter, I agree that “invitee,” “licensee,” “trespasser” are comprehensive categories, and any person on the property must be one of those three. (I read Jodi’s link as saying the same thing.) Since the policeman is legally on the property (presuming that the warrant is valid), he is not a trespasser. Since he is not there for the benefit of the homeowner, he is not an invitee. Therefore, he must be a licensee. In both of the states in which I am licensed to practice law, the duty owed to a licensee is to warn of known, hidden dangers. If the slip-and-fall was due, say, to a faulty stair that the homeowner knew about but had not either repaired or marked in some way, then there could be liability if the defect was not readily observable. If it was due to a puddle that the homeowner didn’t know about (and he had no reason why he should have known), then there would be no liability.
You could probably have a good fight about whether the policeman was a trespasser or a licensee if the warrant was invalid but he reasonably believed it to be valid.
I don’t know about a private home, but in the restaurant where I worked, police officers on duty (and anyone else currently on the clock, for the restaurant or for any other company) were the only people allowed in the kitchen. A private citizen who slips and falls in the kitchen can sue, but the police officer can’t because he’s “at work.” I’d assume it would be much the same in a home.
Just to clarify — (ENugent hit most of this):
In general (ignoring statutory law), a police officer is considered a licensee based on public policy grounds. This means you have to protect them from all known dangerous conditions that are not open and obvious. So, if for example, you know that the carpet is slippery in one spot, and it’s not obvious when looking at it - you would need to warn the policeman about the spot.
That said, as whole bean notes, the so-called “firefighter rule” applies - meaning that police cannot recover for an injury based on a dangerous condition that is an inherent risk of their work-related activities (crimefighting activities in the case of a policeman). The classic example is a rotted out step that collapses while a fireman is running up it and into a fire. Because falling through steps is a danger that firemen assume in their duties - the fireman cannot recover.
In any event, the lawyers on both sides are going to have a lot to argue about.
It is remarkable that a “trespasser” confers liability upon the premises, owner/posessor etc.
The circumstances under which a trespasser can recover vary from state to state, but often, the homeowner’s only duty towards them is not to set deliberate booby traps.
Not really. As ENugent notes, it’s not as clear in that article as it could be - but there is NO duty under the law to an undiscovered trespasser. You don’t know they’re there? You don’t have to protect them.
There is a duty, however, to discovered or anticipated trespassers against artificial conditions that could cause death or serious bodily harm. So if you’ve put a deathtrap on your property - and then you know (or should know) that someone’s walking around out there - you have a duty of care to protect/warn that person. Despite the fact they’re trespassing.
Your scenarios have nothing to do with premises liability, which is what the OP’s question concerns. That notwithstanding, I don’t even think you’re correct. Why on earth would an officer not be allowed to sue a third party (i.e. non-employer) tortfeasor simply because he or she was injured on the job? You might have this topic confused with workers compensation laws that can act to prevent employees from suing their employers or perhaps certain immunities granted to police officers that can prevent them from being sued; whatever the case I can think of a lot of instances were an on-duty police officer injured by the negligence of a third party could sue.
Anyway, as has been expanded upon, under the firmeman’s rule I mentioned above, the officer is generally going to be treated like a licensee.
Unless your restaurant had sovereignty, a judicial code and a developed body of case law different than that of every other jurisdiction in the US, I think you might be wrong or at least confused. Employees injured on the job are generally covered by workers compensation statutes which prevent them from suing their employer in most instances. Unless the cop was employed by the restaurant, he wouldn’t be covered by the workers compensation policy. If he were in the kitchen in execution of his cop duties, he’s be treated like a licensee for premises liability purposes. If he was asked to be there to provide the appearance of security, he might even be considered an invitee.
She might think about it if you laughed, pointed, and said, “Ha! In your face, Bee-otch!”