Plaintiff assumed the risk walking behind an Airbnb and not following the trail.

Airbnb did not possess the land

Hlad v. Hirsch, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 267967, 2025 LX 611567

State:        Pennsylvania, United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff:  Teresa Hlad and Steven Hlad

Defendants:     SarahHirsch,YoelHirsch,andAirbnb,Inc.

Plaintiff Claims:       Negligence against Defendants, and Steven Hlad, Loss of Consortium

Defendant Defenses:        Assumption of the Risk

Holding:            For the Defendants

Year:                   2025

Summary

Plaintiffs were visiting Pennsylvania for the holidays and staying at an Airbnb rented for them. During the state, one of the plaintiffs went out the back door of the home and proceeded to walk towards a breach and across. She knew she was not walking on a trail and turned to go back when she fell, suffering injuries.

The plaintiff knew she was not on the trail. As such, by proceeding, she assumed the risk of her injuries, relieving the defendants of any duty under Pennsylvania law.

Facts

On the morning of December 25, 2022, Teresa Hlad and her son decided to go for a walk and take pictures. Teresa Hlad exited out the back door of the house on the Property and saw a bridge in the woods in the distance. Assuming a trail was near the bridge, she started walking towards the bridge. However, as Teresa Hlad entered the woods, she knew she was not walking on a trail and appreciated that the ground was “uneven” and had “leaves, snow, logs, and. . . was hilly.” Before walking over the bridge, Teresa Hlad noticed that there was no trail and that the ground was uneven, choppy, and leafy. Teresa Hlad testified that she walked carefully in the woods because “it was pretty lumpy out there,” but the lighting was sufficient, and nothing was obstructing her ability to see where she was walking.

Teresa Hlad testified that she crossed the bridge and decided to turn around when she realized there was no trail over the bridge. When she turned around, she was on a “little bit of a hill” and her left foot “kind of went into the ground” causing her to fall. Teresa Hlad testified that the hill was “dingy” and the “dirt was all uneven,” which caused her to fall. The fall happened between 11:15 and 11:30 a.m., and the weather was clear and sunny. Teresa Hlad was unable to provide the location of her fall, stating that if she marked the location, it would be a guess.

Teresa Hlad’s daughter, testified that there was a trail opening near the rear of the house on the Property with signs indicating where the trail was. Teresa Hlad never asked her daughter where the trails were on the Property,[*4] and she failed to follow the signs which clearly indicated where the trail was. Teresa Hlad never contacted her Airbnb host to ask where the trail was located.

Analysis: making sense of the law based on these facts.

The defense argued that they owed no duty to the plaintiffs because the plaintiff knew or should have known that she was not walking on a trail. The fact that the plaintiff was not on a trial was open and obvious. The plaintiff’s own testimony indicated she knew she was not on a trail, which is why she turned back.

The plaintiffs, under Pennsylvania law and the law of the majority of states, were business invitees. As business invitees, the defendants owed them the highest degree of care.

A business invitee is “a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land.”

The defendant owner of the Airbnb’s degree of care to the plaintiff is to protect the plaintiff from known dangers and from dangers that might be discoverable with reasonable care. To be liable, the possessor of land, not necessarily the land owner, must inform the business invitee of the risks that it knows of or could identify by a reasonable inspection.

A possessor of land must protect a business invitee not only from known dangers, but also from “dangers that might be discoverable with reasonable care.”  A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land only if he:

(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.

However, no duty is owed if the plaintiff assumed the risk presented by the dangers. “Furthermore, a possessor of land will not owe a duty to a business invitee if the business invitee assumed the risk of their actions.”

A defendant is relieved of their duty of care when the plaintiff has voluntarily and deliberately proceeded to take a known and obvious risk. A danger is obvious when both the condition and the risk are apparent and would be recognized by a reasonable person, exercising normal perception intelligence and judgment.

Normally, whether or not the plaintiff assumed the risk is a question for the trier of fact, the jury. If the court feels that there was no other way a jury could decide, then the court may rule on the issue.

Here, the court found:

(1)[the plaintiff] consciously appreciated the risks attending her action; (2) she assumed the risk of injury by engaging in the action despite appreciating its risks; and (3) the injury she sustained was the same as that which she appreciated and assumed….

The court found the plaintiff’s statements about where she was walking proved she knew and appreciated the risks, relieving the possessor of any liability because she assumed the risk.

Possessor of land is a distinction only a lawyer could love. A possessor of land is not necessarily the landowner. A tenant occupying an apartment does not own the apartment or apartment building, but is the possessor of land. The definition is based on liability and control of the land, not ownership. So an owner of land cannot be liable if he has no control of the land. In most cases, this occurs through a contract with a third party who wants to do something with the land, and the landowner gives up most rights in the land when doing so.

Here, Airbnb was not the possessor of the land. Airbnb did not exercise control over the land. The owner of the land gave that control to the person who rented the Airbnb.

Airbnb does not own, control, or possess any of the accommodations listed on its marketplace, and does not have the right to access the property where[Teresa] Hlad allegedly sustained injuries

So Now What?

The defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff’s lawsuit was dismissed. IF you open your land to others, you need to make sure that any dangers on the land are identified to someone on the land. How they are on the land determines how much you, as the possessor, have to notify that person of the risks.

Consequently, most people feel that not allowing access to their land is the safest way to be. The duty owed to a trespasser is much lower than the duty owed to someone you invite on your land.

The sole issue for a possessor of land then becomes whether that duty is abrogated by some law or statute which might afford protection to them. In most cases, the best protection is the state Recreational Use Act. Generally, these acts say that if you allow someone on your land for recreational purposes and do NOT charge them for that access, then you are not liable for their injuries. However, each state has its own act, and the courts in each state have interpreted that act in numerous ways. If you are the possessor of land and want to have people on the land, you should find out what your duty to those people might be in advance.

More Articles on

In Ohio, Primary Assumption of the Risk is a complete bar to claims for injuries from hiking at night.    https://rec-law.us/ms45krj3

Most references in case law to assumption of the risk are to this California decision. The basis for understanding Assumption of the Risk is this decision based on an injured finger during a pickup football game.   https://rec-law.us/2p8p4p32

Pennsylvania Supreme Court upholds use of an express assumption of the risk agreement to bar a claim for wrongful death during a triathlon   https://rec-law.us/ubfbtt6

Release fails under Florida’s law because it is only an assumption of risk form, not a release in a Go-Kart case.      https://rec-law.us/3stuw6t2

The assumption of risk defense is still available when the claim is based on a condition of the land. This defense is called the open and obvious doctrine.          https://rec-law.us/4huk6hkc

G-YQ06K3L262

Jim Moss speaking to group

Jim Moss is an attorney specializing in the legal issues of the outdoor recreation community. He represents guides, guide services, outfitters, both as businesses and individuals, and the products they use for their business. He has defended Mt. Everest guide services, summer camps, climbing rope manufacturers, avalanche beacon manufacturers, and many more manufacturers and the outdoor industry. Contact Jim at Jim@Rec-Law.us

Jim is the author or co-author of six books about the legal issues in the outdoor recreation world; the latest is Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law.

To see Jim’s complete bio go here and to see his CV you can find it here. To find out the purpose of this website go here.

G-YQ06K3L262

What do you think? Leave a comment.

If you like this let your friends know or post it on FB, Twitter or LinkedIn

X (formerly Twitter) logo linked to X

LinkedIn logo linked to LinkedIn

Facebook Logo

If you are interested in having me write your release, got to my release page or email me at Jim@Rec-Law.US.

If you would like to hire me as an expert witness, please see my Expert Witness Page.

Author: Outdoor Recreation Insurance, Risk Management and Law

To Purchase Go Here:

Facebook Page: Outdoor Recreation & Adventure Travel Law

Email: Jim@Rec-Law.US

By Recreation Law   Rec-law@recreation-law.com         James H. Moss

@2026 Summit Magic Publishing, LLC

#AdventureTourism, #AdventureTravelLaw, #AdventureTravelLawyer, #AttorneyatLaw, #Backpacking, #BicyclingLaw, #Camps, #ChallengeCourse, #ChallengeCourseLaw, #ChallengeCourseLawyer, #CyclingLaw, #FitnessLaw, #FitnessLawyer, #Hiking, #HumanPowered, #HumanPoweredRecreation, #IceClimbing, #JamesHMoss, #JimMoss, #Law, #Mountaineering, #Negligence, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #OutsideLaw, #OutsideLawyer, #RecLaw, #Rec-Law, #RecLawBlog, #Rec-LawBlog, #RecLawyer, #RecreationalLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #RecreationLawBlog, #RecreationLawcom, #Recreation-Lawcom, #Recreation-Law.com, #RiskManagement, #RockClimbing, #RockClimbingLawyer, #RopesCourse, #RopesCourseLawyer, #SkiAreas, #Skiing, #SkiLaw, #Snowboarding, #SummerCamp, #Tourism, #TravelLaw, #YouthCamps, #ZipLineLawyer, #RecreationLaw, #OutdoorLaw, #OutdoorRecreationLaw, #SkiLaw,