To clarify, I was not drinking, if that matters.
To keep protect the case, I'd rather not mention the state at this point.
Although here's some additoinal questions. If the premises are so open and accessible to anyone, and its recreational use is so obvious to anyone who lives nearby and there was nothing being done to prevent access would that reasonably constitute consent, thus create duty of care to keep it safe or close it up completely for the owner? This is not the actual case, but let's say a large parking lot is abandoned. People start using the lot or the attached building in a very conspicuous way
The area is kept accessible, ie. you can just walk drive/walk.
Would that constitute trespass anymore so than, say you park in the bank's parking lot to go to the barber shop across the street with no intent of patronizing the bank, then trip on a big pothole and injure yourself on the bank's premises.
Would that person be considred trespasser or an invitee as they had no lawful busisness to be on the bank's parking lot? (i.e. does not have an account at that bank, the bank was obviously closed that day)

