History of the Connecticut Judicial Seal Home Home BannerBanner


 

 

 

 

 

   

3.9-8  Status of Parties - Exceeding the Limits of Invitee

Revised to January 1, 2008

You have heard testimony that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was <insert specific facts> on the defendant's premises.  The defendant has claimed that the plaintiff had exceeded the limits of the invitation at the time of the accident by leaving that portion of the premises intended for the use of patrons and entering a part where the possessor could not reasonably have foreseen that patrons would enter.  The plaintiff disagrees and claims that even if you find a departure from the portion of the premises intended for the use of patrons, the plaintiff had the right to assume that the place where the accident occurred was one which patrons had the right to use.

You must decide whether the plaintiff remained an invitee on the defendant's premises or whether, under the circumstances, (he/she) became a trespasser. I instructed you earlier on those definitions.

There are circumstances under which a business invitee may go outside the portion of the premises which the possessor intends patrons to use and still be entitled to the exercise of reasonable care from the defendant.  Such a situation occurs when the possessor, in view of all the circumstances, ought reasonably to have anticipated that patrons were likely to enter a part of the premises not primarily intended for their use.

If you find that the plaintiff was using the premises in a way that the defendant could have reasonably anticipated them to be used, then the plaintiff remained an invitee at the time of the accident.  If you find that the plaintiff was using the premises in a way that the defendant could not have reasonably anticipated, then the plaintiff lost (his/her) invitee status.

Authority

Ford v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, 155 Conn. 24, 33-34 (1967).

Notes

"An invitation usually includes the use of such parts of the premises as the visitor reasonably believes are held open to him as a means of access to or egress from the place where his purpose is to be carried out."  Ford v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders International Union, supra, 155 Conn. 33.
 


 

Attorneys | Case Look-up | Courts | Directories | Educational Resources | E-Services | Español | FAQ's | Juror Information | Media | Opinions | Opportunities | Self-Help | Home

Common Legal Words | Contact Us | Site Map | Website Policies and Disclaimers

Copyright © 2011, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch