Anthony v. Anthony, 21
| Decision Date | 20 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,21 |
| Parties | William Perry ANTHONY et ux. v. Linnie ANTHONY. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Cheek, Taylor & Groover, Knoxville, for Linnie Anthony.
Rex Don Palmer, Maryville, for William Perry Anthony.
Mrs. Linnie Anthony sues Mr. and Mrs. William Perry Anthony, her son and daughter-in-law, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall at a lakeside cottage owned by the defendants.
After a trial by jury, judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $3,000.00 was entered upon the jury's verdict.
In this appeal defendants, among other things, insist the circuit judge erred in not sustaining their motion for directed verdict.
On July 29, 1966, plaintiff, seventy-eight year old Mrs. Linnie Anthony, was attending a family gathering along with some twenty other relatives at the defendants' lakeside cottage. Plaintiff fell as she started to go from the kitchen to a concrete patio or porch, receiving injuries which are the subject of this suit.
The entranceway where plaintiff fell has a concrete step on the patio side which is eight inches high, forty inches long with an eight inch tread. The concrete floor of the patio extends twelve inches from the step to the outside edge wall which is some four feet above ground level. There is no railing or barrier along this edge of the patio. As you go from the kitchen there is a screen door which opens to the inside part of the patio or away from the outer edge. This door is described as opening the wrong or opposite way but the record shows the door opens to the right which is not an unusual way for doors to open. When plaintiff opened this door, she commenced to fall, landing first on the patio and then rolling off the edge to the ground.
Plaintiff's recovery is predicated on the grounds defendants failed to forewarn her of the condition of the screen door and the patio which is alleged to be such a dangerous condition so as to constitute a 'trap.'
Plaintiff's brief concedes that her status is that of a social guest. It if further agreed by both sides the decision in Walker v. Williams, 215 Tenn. 195, 384 S.W.2d 447, is controlling in this case. In that case it was said:
'* * * that a social guest is not in law an invitee but is a licensee to whom the owner owes no duty except to refrain from willfully injuring him or from committing negligence so gross as to amount to willfulness, or from leading him into a trap.' (cases cited)
'* * * 'trap' as used with reference to liability therefor in tort designates a device or condition created with intent to injure, but, of course, we no longer follow such strict use of the word, and 'trap' as now used in this type of lawsuit generally means any kind of a hidden dangerous condition and there need not be any intent to injure.'
For authorities adopting a similar view see annotation and collection of authorities in 29 A.L.R.2d 598; Prosser, Law of Torts, 2d ed., Sec. 77.
When the principles and rules as enunciated in the Walker case are applied to this case, we think defendants' motion for directed verdict should be sustained. Plaintiff does not allege nor is it shown by the proof the defendants were guilty of such willful or wanton misconduct so as to be grossly negligent. Nor does the evidence support the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hudson v. Gaitan
...ordinance. This constituted negligence per se on behalf of the defendants. However, this court held in the case of Anthony v. Anthony, 60 Tenn.App. 143, 444 S.W.2d 714 (1969) that 'ordinary negligence' will not sustain a recovery by a guest against his Additional facts to be considered are:......
-
Ridley v. Spence
...in directing a verdict for the defendants was correct." Supra, pp. 201, 202, 384 S.W.2d p. 450. In the later case of Anthony v. Anthony (1969), Tenn.App., 444 S.W.2d 714, this Court cited Walker v. Williams, supra, and applied the "* * * that a social guest is not in law an invitee but is a......
-
Alexander v. Hopkins
...may constitute the leading of such guest into a trap, so as to render the landowner liable for negligence. Anthony v. Anthony, C.A.Tenn. (1969), 60 Tenn.App. 143, 444 S.W.2d 714, 715, certiorari denied Construing the allegations of the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, Scheuer ......
-
Olsen v. Robinson
...the defendants led the plaintiff into a trap. The question of a trap by failure to warn is the basis of the opinion in Anthony v. Anthony, 60 Tenn.App. 143, 444 S.W.2d 714 (cert. denied by Sup.Ct. Sept. 15, We are of the opinion that the complaint alleges no more than ordinary negligence on......