Boyrie v. E & G Property Services
2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 2
| D.C. | 2013Background
- Ms. Boyrie, injured when she slipped on ice/snow near an apartment building owned/managed by appellees, sues for negligence.
- The incident occurred after she and a friend visited a resident contact point and then wandered to a dark, unlit paved area behind the building.
- There was no express invitation from appellees or the resident to enter the paved area; they did not notify the repair person beforehand.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling Ms. Boyrie was trespassing and that appellees owed no duty of care.
- The appellate court reverses, holding the current record does not establish as a matter of law that Boyrie was a trespasser, and remands for further proceedings.
- Under DC law, landowners owe a duty of reasonable care to all lawfully on premises; trespassers generally receive limited protection unless actions involve intentional or hidden hazards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boyrie was a trespasser as a matter of law | Boyrie contends facts do not prove trespasser status | Appellees argue she was a trespasser at the time of injury | Not established as a matter of law |
| Whether a landowner owes duty to those on premises when entry is not expressly invited | Boyrie was lawfully on area with indirect permission by use/open access | No duty owed if trespasser status proven | Duty not settled; record shows possible licensee by invitation or acquiescence |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 431 A.2d 597 (D.C.1981) (duty of care to invitees/licensees on premises)
- Lacy v. Sutton Place Condo. Ass’n, 684 A.2d 390 (D.C.1996) (trespassers generally owed no duty of care)
- Firfer v. United States, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 216 (D.C.1953) (trespassers may recover for intentional, wanton injury or hidden hazard)
- Daisey v. Colonial Parking, Inc., 118 U.S.App.D.C. 31 (D.C.1963) (license by invitation may be inferred from environment; open access implies duty)
- Miller & Long Co. v. Shaw, 204 A.2d 697 (D.C.1964) (invitation to enter may be implied from facilities' appearance)
- Cedar Hill Cemetery v. Ball, 64 App.D.C. 336 (D.C.1935) (distinction between invitees/licensees in landowner duties)