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.