In a significant decision issued on Friday, July 18, 2014, involving an accident at a retail store, the Vermont Supreme Court has abolished the old premises liability distinction between “business invitees” (i.e., customers) and licensees (other visitors). The Court has now formally adopted a general negligence standard of reasonable care applicable to both types of visitors. The case is Demag v. Better Power Equipment, Inc., 2014 VT 78. http://info.libraries.vermont.gov/supct/current/op2013-120.html
This case involved a visitor who was on the defendant’s business premises not as a customer, but as a vendor providing a service to the business. He fell into a storm drain in the business’s parking lot because the drain cover had been dislodged by a snowplow. The owners of the business claimed not to know that the storm drain cover had been dislodged. The visitor sued the business. The trial court classified the visitor as a “licensee” (i.e., not a customer) – as opposed to an “invitee” (i.e., a customer) – and granted summary judgment to the business, reasoning that under traditional premises liability principles the business owed a lower standard of care to a licensee. In other words, because the visitor was a licensee, the owners owed him no legal duty to become aware that the storm drain cover had been dislodged and posed a danger to him. On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reversed, ruling that there should no longer be any distinction in Vermont between a licensee and an invitee. The Court remanded the case to the trial court for a jury determination as to whether the business should have been aware that the storm drain posed a danger to the visitor.
In most cases, this decision will probably not affect retail or business establishments, because most of their visitors are customers and the establishment was already held to the higher standard for these visitors as “invitees.” However, sometimes the person who is injured in or around a business establishment might be the employee of a vendor. In such cases, the business establishment can no longer argue that it has a lower standard of care because the person was only a “licensee.” The legal standard will now be the same regardless of whether the plaintiff is a customer of the business or a vendor. Obviously, this decision has implications for business establishments. While vendors who are injured while on another business’s premises will typically be covered by their own employer’s workers compensation insurance, they can still bring a claim against the business establishment for negligence, and the WC carrier can subrogate. This decision will potentially make their claim easier to prove. Note: this decision did not affect the third category of visitors on property: “trespassers.”