Jeremy D. Mohr v. Virginia B. Smith Revocable Trust and Virginia B. Smith, as Trustee of the Virginia B. Smith Revocable Trust, 2 N.E.3d 50

Mohr and Kastner entered Smith’s lakefront property at night without permission.
A hammock tied between two trees on Smith’s property collapsed, injuring Mohr and killing Kastner.
Mohr sued Smith for premises liability; Smith moved for summary judgment.
The trial court granted summary judgment in Smith’s favor; Mohr appealed.
Smith acknowledged public incidental presence but argued she provided only permissive access, not an invitation.
Court affirmed summary judgment, ruling Mohr was at most a licensee and Smith had no latent-danger knowledge to warn about.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Mohr a licensee or invitee on Smith’s land?	Mohr was a public invitee due to open access.	Mohr was a licensee; Smith did not invite the public.	Mohr was at most a licensee.
Did Smith breach any duty to a licensee?	Smith failed to warn of latent danger (dead tree).	No latent danger known; no duty breached.	No breach; duty not violated as a matter of law.
Was summary judgment proper given the facts?	There are genuine issues of material fact.	Undisputed facts negate duty breach; no factual dispute.	Summary judgment proper.

Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (adopts invitation-test framework for invitee status; distinguishes licensee vs. invitee)
McCormick v. State, 673 N.E.2d 829 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (invitation vs. permission; mere permission makes visitor a licensee)
Rhoades v. Heritage Invs., LLC, 839 N.E.2d 788 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (landowner duty to licensee is to warn of latent dangers known to owner)