New York Law (NYLE) Practice Exam

If Brandon loses the case after falling on Jason's property, why might this be so?

1. Brandon was a trespasser

2. Brandon was an invitee

3. Jason maintained the property with reasonable care

4. Brandon was a licensee

The correct answer is: Jason maintained the property with reasonable care

The correct answer focuses on the concept of premises liability and the duty of care owed by property owners to individuals on their property. If Brandon loses the case after falling on Jason's property because Jason maintained the property with reasonable care, it indicates that Jason met his legal responsibility to keep his property safe for those who are on it. In premises liability cases, the standard of care required from property owners varies depending on the status of the person on the property. For invitees, property owners must ensure the premises are safe and warn of any known hazards. For licensees and trespassers, the standard is lower. If it is established that Jason acted with reasonable care in managing his property, then he fulfills his duty under New York law, which protects him from liability regardless of Brandon's status as a trespasser, invitee, or licensee. Status plays a crucial role in these cases. If Brandon were a trespasser or a licensee, the liability standard would be less stringent, allowing Jason's reasonable care in property maintenance to absolve him of liability. Therefore, the conclusion that Brandon could lose the case rests on Jason's proactive efforts to ensure safety, which is supported by the assertion that he maintained the property with reasonable care.