his want of ordinary care or skill in the 

 management of his property or person except 

 so far as the latter has willfully or by want 

 of ordinary care brought the injury upon 

 himself. 



In Corrigan v. Junney ^ M , 626 P. 2d 838, 38 



St. Rep. 545 (1981) , the Montana Supreme Court held that 

 27-1-701, MCA, prevented them from distinguishing 

 between social guests (licensees) and invitees in 

 determining the liability of the landowner for injuries 



received. In Limberhand v. Big Ditch Co. , M , 



P. 2d , 42 St. Rep. 1460 (1985), the court found 



that the same statute declared the applicable law as to 

 the duty of landowners to persons even though they were 

 trespassers. The court said: 



. . . the test is not always the status of the 

 injured party but the exercise of ordinary 

 care in the circumstances by the landowner. 

 Limberhand at 1465. 



Limberhand also stated that if a dangerous 

 instrumentality is located on land adjoining a 

 landowner's property and the instrumentality poses a 

 clear and forseeable danger to pc^.rsons properly using 

 the landowner's property, the landowner is not immune 

 from liability as a matter of law. The court found 

 that a duty to take some reasonable precautions may 

 exist. This duty depends upon the circumstances 

 involved and may range from a duty to warn to a duty to 

 take remedial action. See Limberhand at 1470. 



It appears from the language in the Limberhand decision 

 that each incident involving potential liability of a 

 landowner will be decided upon its individual facts. 

 The court or a jury will have to determine whether the 



