Hurt when trespassing

If you trespass and get hurt, you probably cannot recover for your injuries.

The court held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition for defendant because plaintiff was not a licensee and defendant-Woudenberg's actions were not willful and wanton, he did not breach his duty of care, and he was not a general contractor. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition for defendant. Plaintiff and Woudenberg both own condo units at the defendant-Union Square Development. In 3/08, plaintiff was showing his condo to prospective renters. He opened an unlocked, unmarked door that he thought led to an exercise room. Instead, the door was a second entrance to one of Woudenberg's two units. Plaintiff stepped through the door, fell six feet to a concrete floor, and sustained injuries. Woudenberg was in the process of renovating the unit, and earlier he had asked his employee, A, to remove a platform in front of the door and to barricade and lock the door. A removed the platform, but he did not lock the door. He placed a small barricade at the bottom of the door. The court rejected plaintiff's argument that he was a licensee, noting that plaintiff was a trespasser. The court observed that there was no evidence that defendant acquiesced in the known, customary use of the property by the public. The court further observed that plaintiff did not know what lay behind the door when he opened it. The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that, even if he was a trespasser, the trial court erroneously dismissed the case because defendant's actions were willful and wanton. The court noted that defendant did not show such indifference to whether plaintiff would be injured because he instructed his employee to lock and barricade the door. The court also rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant breached his duty of care, noting that defendant's conduct did not amount to the improper performance of his construction work in the building, and he was not acting as a general contractor. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant assumed the duty to protect plaintiff from the platform when he instructed his employee to barricade and lock the door.