Why not just copy the definition from Black's or something instead of having an answer that is only 1/2 right. There are many incorrect generalizations here. I tried to clean it up a little, but it really needs more work. It should probably be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.192.44.25 (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure but I believe there are specific laws that only apply in some states that prohibit policemen and firemen from recovering for injuries sustained on the job. While Workers Comp might have similar provisions, I don't know if that is available in every state. Sorry I don't have time to research this myself.

I think a lot of this is wrong[edit]

First, the status of the visitor as trespasser, invitee, and licensee has been overturned, at least in some states. Rowland v. Christian (1968 in California) pretty much did away with using these categories as determinative of the duty of care, at least in California. Other states have followed suit to a large extent. A good source on this is "Tort Stories" by Rabin and Sugarman, although I don't have time to fix this. However, I believe that the status of the visitor may often have some impact on the duty of care - it's just that cases like Rowland said that they are not completely determinative.

Second, I'm pretty sure that even in the old way of doing things, the highest duty of care was given to licensees, not invitees. I am pretty sure that social guests, for example, don't have to be warned of noticeable defects. Even in terms of hidden defects, it's unclear. The Restatement Second of Torts in 1965 provided for a broad definition of hidden defects, but for example, CA at the time of Rowland hadn't adopted it, and it had a very narrow definition of hidden defects (a typical example being a loaded spring gun).

Third, trespassers have often been given more rights than one might think the laws would provide. Often landowners can be found liable for trespassers hurting themselves in some jurisdictions, with other jurisdictions not wanting to allow people to collect damages arising from wrongful action in the first place.

This article should be fully deleted or cleaned up.

Borntostorm 20:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Licensee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111115024922/http://www.solicitorssearch.com/Article/Lease-or-License-77 to http://www.solicitorssearch.com/Article/Lease-or-License-77

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]