Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 925 — Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-557a (2025)

Standard of care owed social invitee

✓ laws through the 2024 session: the source has not yet published 2025 Public Acts (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The standard of care owed to a social invitee shall be the same as the standard of care owed to a business invitee.

(1963, P.A. 575.)

Postman a licensee comparable to a social invitee. 154 C. 185. Standard of care owed to social invitee is same as standard of care as owed to business invitee. 160 C. 61. Cited. 194 C. 129. Does not abrogate common law regarding status of firefighters and police officers; status of such licensees is unaffected by manner in which they came upon the premises. 218 C. 610.

Cited. 54 CA 335.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1966–2012 · leading case: Furstein v. Hill, 590 A.2d 939 (Conn. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Furstein v. Hill, 590 A.2d 939 (Conn. 1991). · cites it 5× “First, he contends that General Statutes § 52-557a, enacted four years after this court decided Roberts v.”
Warner v. Leslie-Elliott Constructors, Inc., 479 A.2d 231 (Conn. 1984). · cites it 4× “*134 To support further her claim that the statute does not abrogate the principles of common law liability, the plaintiff contends that General Statutes § 52-557a, which provides that “[t]he standard of care owed to a social invitee shall be the same as the standard of care…”
Sevigny v. Dibble Hollow Condo. Ass'n, 819 A.2d 844 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “[General Statutes § 52-557a], which provides that [t]he standard of care owed to a social invitee shall be the same as the standard of care owed to a business invitee, in effect recognizes a third kind of invitee, namely, the social invitee.”
Perez v. Cumba, 51 A.3d 1156 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “[General Statutes § 52-557a], which provides that [t]he standard of care owed to a social invitee shall be the same as the standard of care owed to a business invitee, in effect recognizes a third kind of invitee, namely, the social invitee.”
Monterose v. Cross, 760 A.2d 1013 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000). · cites it 2× “The allegations as to the defendant’s skill as a rigger are gratuitous and irrelevant to the theory of premises liability alleged in the second amended complaint because, in premises liability actions, the standard of care depends on the status of the visitor once the ownership…”
Corcoran v. Jacovino, 290 A.2d 225 (Conn. 1971). · cites it 2× “The plaintiffs also rely on § 52-557a of the General Statutes, which provides that a social invitee is owed the same standard of care as a business invitee.”
Kurti v. Becker, 733 A.2d 916 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999). “Section § 52-557a of the General Statutes, which provides that [t]he standard of care owed to a social invitee shall be the same as the standard of care owed to a business invitee, in effect recognizes a third kind of invitee, namely, the social invitee.”
Haffey v. Lemieux, 224 A.2d 551 (Conn. 1966). · cites it 2× “1 In 1963, the General Assembly, by what is now General Statutes § 52-557a, provided that “[t]he standard of care owed to a social invitee shall be the same as the standard of care owed to a business invitee.”
Kopjanski v. Festa, 273 A.2d 692 (Conn. 1970). · cites it 2× “When the storm door opened out it cast a shadow to some degree and the storm door opened up beyond the stone step.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.