In this case, it appears that Ms. Figueroa may have an action against North Park College
if she can show that the College owed her a duty to prevent the assault from occurring and if she
can show the College’s negligence directly led to her being harmed.
Generally speaking, a premises liability case can be filed when someone is injured on
someone else’s property (Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers). However, before she can recover, a
court will need to determine whether Ms. Figueroa was an invitee, licensee or trespasser because
this will have a potentially significant impact on what, if any, compensation, Ms. Figueroa may
be permitted to recover.
Property owners have a certain duty of care to others who may visit their property;
however, how much of a duty they owe their visitors (and how liable they are for injured to their
visitors) will depend on why or how they came to be on the property in the first place. If, for
example, Ms. Figueroa was a trespasser on the lot and was not lawfully on the premises in any
capacity, Ms. Figueroa would not be able to recover in the same way as someone who was
invited onto or authorized to be on the premises.
Invitees and licensees are both similar in that each have authorization to be on the
property owner’s premises. The important differences are whether the property owner expected
their visit to the property and what their purposes for visiting was. An invitee is someone who
was explicitly invited onto the premises, usually for business / financial purposes, for example a
hotel guest or grocery store customer (Cornell Law School , 2023). Conversely, a licensee can be
anyone who has permission to be on the premises but usually is there for social purposes, such as
a neighbor or family member visiting the property.
These distinctions matter in a legal setting, because if an invitee is injured on an owner’s
property by a hazard that is not noticeably visible, then the invitee may nevertheless be entitled
to some form of compensation for their injuries. In contrast, a licensee might only be allowed to
recover for his/her injuries if the property owner knew of the hazard and failed to warn the
licensee of the danger (Ray).
It seems that Ms. Figueroa was a guest at the childcare center, likely paying for their
services, thus the center would have had an increased responsibility to caution or safeguard her
from harm. Nonetheless, as the parking lot utilized by Ms. Figueroa was not under the center's
jurisdiction, they might have a compelling defense to absolve themselves from liability. In
contrast, it could be argued that Ms. Figueroa’s legal status to that of North Park College would
have fallen into the category of a licensee given the fact (FindLaw, 2017) that she was not
explicitly invited onto the premises owned by North Park for business or financial purposes
related to the College, but rather had been given permission and legal authorization to utilize its
parker lot while she was visiting the child care center.
In this instance, Ms. Figueroa may find she is only able to recover against North Park if
North Park knew of the potential dangers posed by third parties on the premises yet failed to
warn her of it, or otherwise take reasonably prudent action to prevent the incident from
occurring. In this scenario, since there was no past record of similar assaults or attacks on the
premises, North Park might argue that the incident was not reasonably predictable, and therefore,
they had no obligation to take additional measures to caution or prevent the harm that occurred
by Ms. Figueroa.
However, Ms. Figueroa could contend that by sending a letter to the visitors of the
childcare center explicitly permitting their use and presence on the North Park lot, this invitation
effectively placed Ms. Figueroa and other recipients of the North Park letter into the category of
invitees. Consequently, this action triggered a heightened duty for North Park to warn and take
reasonable precautions to prevent harm.
In this instance, it is plausible to argue that by sending the letter, the College would have
anticipated visitors like Ms. Figueroa, thereby categorizing her as an invitee rather than just a
licensee. Therefore, I believe she would be determined to be an invitee and not merely a licensee.
References
(n.d.). Retrieved from Jeffrey Glassman Injury Lawyers: https://www.jeffreysglassman.com/premises-
liability.html
Cornell Law School . (2023, March). Retrieved from Legal Information Institute:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/invitee
FindLaw. (2017, November 6). The Issue of Forseeability and A Proprietor's Responsibility for the
Unanticipated Criminal Acts Of Others. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcorporate.findlaw.com%2Fbusiness-
operations%2Fthe-issue-of-forseeability-and-a-proprietor-s-responsibility-
for.html&psig=AOvVaw0aLFIJ8OO-
o_SfAj2Nmpp3&ust=1706663548848000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&
Ray, D. (n.d.). Retrieved from NOLO: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-premises-
liability.html
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
