Invitee, Guest, or Trespasser: Why Your Status Matters in a Florida Premises Case

In a Florida premises liability case, one of the first questions is why you were on the property. The answer sets the duty the owner owed you. A shopper, a dinner guest, and a trespasser can be hurt by the same broken step and have very different claims.

Invitees: The Highest Duty

Customers in a store, guests at a hotel, patients at a clinic, and people at places held open to the public are invitees. Property owners and occupiers owe invitees reasonable care. That generally means keeping the property in reasonably safe condition and warning of concealed dangers the owner knows or should know about.

Social Guests Are Treated Like Invitees

Many people assume a guest in a private home gets less protection than a paying customer. In Florida, that is generally not true. In Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973), the Florida Supreme Court held that the class of invitees entitled to reasonable care "is expanded to include those who are 'licensees by invitation' of the property owner, either by express or reasonably implied invitation." The court explained that it was eliminating "the distinction between commercial (business or public) visitors and social guests upon the premises, applying to both the single standard of reasonable care under the circumstances."

So if you were invited to a friend's house, a party at a condo, or a family gathering, the owner generally owed you reasonable care.

Uninvited Licensees: A Narrow Category

Wood v. Camp kept a separate, limited category for "uninvited" licensees: persons who come onto the property "solely for their own convenience without invitation either expressed or reasonably implied." The court acknowledged that this "very limited category seems to overlap with the trespasser." These visitors are owed less than invitees.

Trespassers: Section 768.075

Florida's Legislature has set the duty to trespassers by statute. Section 768.075, Florida Statutes, provides that an owner is not liable to a trespasser except in narrow situations, and it separates two kinds of trespassers:

• Undiscovered trespassers, whose presence the owner did not detect within 24 hours before the accident. The owner must refrain from intentional misconduct but "has no duty to warn of dangerous conditions" (section 768.075(3)(b)).
• Discovered trespassers, whose presence the owner detected, or was reliably told about, within 24 hours before the accident. The owner must refrain from gross negligence or intentional misconduct, and must warn of dangerous conditions that the owner knows about and that are "not readily observable by others" (section 768.075(3)(b)).

The statute also defines "invitation" from the visitor's point of view: the visitor "has an objectively reasonable belief that he or she has been invited or is otherwise welcome on that portion of the real property where injury occurs" (section 768.075(3)(a)1.). That definition matters when someone wanders past a "staff only" door or into a closed area.

Intoxicated trespassers and felonies

Section 768.075(1) bars claims by trespassers who were under the influence of alcohol at a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher, or impaired by certain other substances, unless the owner's gross negligence or intentional misconduct caused the injury. Section 768.075(4) bars negligence claims by a person attempting to commit, or committing, a felony on the property.

Children

Section 768.075(3)(c) states that the trespasser subsection "shall not be interpreted or construed to alter the common law as it pertains to the 'attractive nuisance doctrine.'" Claims involving children drawn onto property by a dangerous condition, such as an unfenced pool, are analyzed under that separate common-law doctrine.

Your Status Can Change on the Same Property

Status is measured where the injury happened. Under section 768.075(3)(a)1., the question is whether you were invited or welcome "on that portion of the real property where injury occurs." A customer is an invitee in the aisles of a store, but may be treated differently in a locked stockroom.

Other Rules Still Apply

Whatever your status, Florida's comparative fault statute can reduce or bar recovery. See Florida's 51% bar explained. Dog bites are handled under a separate statute that protects people "lawfully" on private property. See Florida's dog bite statute.

How Your Case Is Referred

Your case will be referred to another lawyer. Recalde Law Firm, P.A. does not litigate premises injury cases. Rafael Recalde reviews what happened and, if the matter appears to have merit, refers it to another Florida lawyer or law firm that handles premises liability cases.

You will know which firm will handle your case before you sign anything. Under Rule 4-1.5 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, a fee can be divided between firms only with your written consent, in a written contract signed by you and by each participating firm, and each firm accepts joint legal responsibility for your representation. You are always free to choose a different lawyer.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Does a homeowner owe a social guest the same duty as a store owes a customer in Florida?

Generally yes. In Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973), the Florida Supreme Court held that invited guests, or 'licensees by invitation,' are owed the same standard of reasonable care under the circumstances as business visitors.

Q: Can a trespasser sue a Florida property owner?

Only in narrow situations. Under section 768.075, Florida Statutes, an owner must refrain from intentional misconduct toward undiscovered trespassers. Toward discovered trespassers, the owner must also refrain from gross negligence and warn of known dangers that are not readily observable.

Q: What makes someone a discovered trespasser in Florida?

Under section 768.075(3)(a)2., a discovered trespasser is someone whose actual physical presence the owner detected, or was alerted to by a reliable source, within 24 hours before the accident.

Q: Does Florida's trespasser statute apply to children?

Section 768.075(3)(c) says the trespasser subsection does not alter the common-law attractive nuisance doctrine, which applies separately to certain claims involving children.

Sources

• Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 (Fla. 1973)
• Section 768.075, Florida Statutes (2026) — duties to trespassers

This article explains general Florida law as of October 9, 2026. It is not legal advice about your situation.