Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.9-8

You have heard testimony that at the time of the accident the plaintiff was <insert specific facts>

on the defendant’s premises. The defendant has claimed that the plaintiff had exceeded the

limits of the invitation at the time of the accident by leaving that portion of the premises intended

for the use of patrons and entering a part where the possessor could not reasonably have foreseen

that patrons would enter. The plaintiff disagrees and claims that even if you find a departure

from the portion of the premises intended for the use of patrons, the plaintiff had the right to

assume that the place where the accident occurred was one which patrons had the right to use.

You must decide whether the plaintiff remained an invitee on the defendant’s premises or

whether, under the circumstances, the plaintiff became a trespasser. I instructed you earlier on

those definitions.

There are circumstances under which a business invitee may go outside the portion of the

premises which the possessor intends patrons to use and still be entitled to the exercise of

reasonable care from the defendant. Such a situation occurs when the possessor, in view of all

the circumstances, ought reasonably to have anticipated that patrons were likely to enter a part of

the premises not primarily intended for their use.

If you find that the plaintiff was using the premises in a way that the defendant could have

reasonably anticipated them to be used, then the plaintiff remained an invitee at the time of the

accident. If you find that the plaintiff was using the premises in a way that the defendant could

not have reasonably anticipated, then the plaintiff lost the plaintiff’s invitee status.