I agree. This is one of those things we all like to be able to say when we are arguing with someone. But to be able to say it without feeling like you are being yelled at or being told to stop being a jerk is not only admirable, it is quite refreshing to be able to say that. It can be quite comforting to be able to say that with authority and without feeling like you are being challenged.
Unfortunately, there are times when we have no duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees. And we don’t have to. If we are inviting someone to our home, we have a duty to be extremely careful not to spread disease to them. That is a pretty basic social contract. We are to take care of our guests so that they don’t do anything nasty to us.
The reason we have a duty to take care of our guests is because we have a duty to be at the home to do so. If we are not, then we may violate that social contract. However, if we are at the home to take care of our guests, we do NOT have a duty to take care of our guests, even if the person who is doing so is a guest of ours.
The social contract is pretty clear in this sentence. We have a duty to be at the house to take care of our guests, so that they do NOT do anything nasty to us. If we are not there, then we can violate that contract. However, if we are at the home to take care of our guests, we do NOT have a duty to take care of our guests.
This law is called the “Hollywood 8 Statute” or “Hollywood 8” in the case of its use in the movie business. It is a provision about the right of people to sue movie production companies if they kill a movie star. Because this section of “the social contract” applies to all people, not just movie stars, the courts have interpreted it as saying that everyone has a right to sue if someone harms or kills a person who is a guest.
There are two ways to interpret the law here. The first is that because the person who killed the person who was a guest was a movie director or producer, he or she had a duty to take care of the person who was a guest and not harm or kill the person who was a guest. The second interpretation is that the court found that the director or producer was also a guest when he killed the person who was a guest.
The case law here is pretty clear that a business owner has the same duty to protect a person who is a guest as he has to protect a person who is a guest. It’s true that some people are more likely to be guests of a business, but a person who is a guest is more likely to have a need to be protected than a person who is a guest.
The case law really only applies to the first interpretation. In the second interpretation, a business owner will have no duty to protect a person who is a guest. Just because a business owner has a duty to protect a person who is a guest doesn’t mean it’s reasonable. That’s because if you’re a business owner who is protecting a person who is a guest, you might be a good and kind person, but you don’t have a duty to protect that person.
But the very fact that you have a duty to protect a person who is a guest means that you have a duty to investigate. If you have a duty to investigate, you have that duty to get the facts, so if you dont, then you are doing nothing to protect that person from harm. That is not a good way of looking at it.
The fact that you have a duty to protect a guest means that you have a duty to inform them of the danger, and a duty to protect them from harm. And a duty to inform means that you have that duty to do something about it. That means you must take reasonable steps to protect the guest from harm.
