Rowland v. Christian
Open-knowledge reference entry
Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 (1968), was a landmark case decided by the Supreme Court of California. It eliminated the categories of invitee, licensee, and trespasser to determine the duty of care owed by a possessor of land to the people on the land. It replaced the classifications with a general duty of care owed to all persons.
Background
As explained by the Court of Appeal in its opinion below, the plaintiff, James Davis Rowland, Jr., was a guest in the apartment of the defendant, Nancy Christian. They knew each other through a mutual friend. On the day of the accident, the plaintiff came to the defendant's apartment to ask her to drive him to the airport to catch a flight, and she agreed.
The plaintiff requested to use the bathroom and a water faucet handle broke off in his hand, leaving him with severed tendons and nerve damage.
The defendant had complained to the landlord about the broken handle but did not warn the plaintiff.
The public source identifies “Rowland v. Christian” as open-knowledge reference entry. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Rowland, Christian and Open-knowledge.
Why this record matters
A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Rowland v. Christian”, the useful work is to connect “open-knowledge reference entry” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 12, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q17108004. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1968.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Rowland v. Christian”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Rowland v. Christian primary sources, Rowland v. Christian archive and Rowland research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Rowland v. Christian”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Rowland v. Christian” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.