Biggs v. Bear
| Decision Date | 17 November 1943 |
| Docket Number | Gen. No. 42317. |
| Citation | 51 N.E.2d 799,320 Ill.App. 597 |
| Parties | BIGGS v. BEAR ET AL. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; Daniel P. Trude, Judge.
Action by Bernice H. Biggs against Theodore Bear and Edda Bear to recover for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff while a guest in defendants' home. The trial court directed a verdict for defendants and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed. Krohn & MacDonald, of Chicago (Stuart B. Krohn and Ian P. MacDonald, both of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.
Kirkland, Fleming, Green, Martin & Ellis, of Chicago (William H. Symmes, David Jacker, Charles R. Morrow, and John M. O'Connor, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellees.
This is a personal injury action in which the court directed a verdict of not guilty and entered judgment thereon.
To test the court's action we must assume plaintiff's evidence to be true, favor her strongly in drawing legal inferences and consider then whether there is any evidence tending to prove the elements of her case. Under the issues plaintiff was required to prove that defendants violated a duty to warn her, their guest, of a dangerous arrangement of doors in their kitchen; and that while exercising due care and as a result of defendants' failure to warn her, and their further negligence in failing to light and guard, and provide a landing between the door and the steps of the rear stairway, she fell down the stairs and was injured.
Plaintiff, with four other women, was invited to a 12:30 o'clock luncheon at defendants' home and, before dessert, while they were stretching, she inquired for a washroom and, having been directed by “someone”, went toward one of three or four doors in the kitchen, all of which looked alike with nothing to distinguish them. Looking toward the door to which she was advancing, she opened it away from her and stepped and looked simultaneously into the darkness. There was no landing and, not knowing of, or expecting, the stairway, she fell down ten or twelve steps and was injured. She had never been on the premises before, and before the luncheon she was shown partially about, but not shown the stairway and knew nothing of it.
The vital question is whether plaintiff was a licensee or invitee. If a licensee, the court properly directed the verdict, since there was no evidence of wilful and wanton misconduct. Roth v. Schaefer, 300 Ill.App. 464, 21 N.E.2d 328. No Illinois case cited is precisely applicable. In Fisher v. Jansen, 30 Ill.App. 91, plaintiff was a guest of a tenant of a multiple dwelling and the landlord was defendant. Chalmers v. Kolb, 9 F.2d 924, would appear to support plaintiff's view, but it fades in the light of what is hereinafter stated. Several Illinois cases express the difference between the general terms licensee and invitee, but in none of them is the negligence alleged based on a social relationship. Milauskis v. Terminal R. Ass'n, 286 Ill. 547, 122 N.E. 78;Purtell v. Philadelphia & R. Coal & Iron Co., 256 Ill. 110, 99 N.E. 899, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 193, Ann.Cas.1913E, 335; and Pauckner v. Wakem, 231 Ill. 276, 83 N.E. 202, 14...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Bogert
... ... to be carried out by the plaintiff and said defendant, namely, the giving of a bridal shower for a mutual friend; that each of the parties would bear proportionately all expenses involved, including the furnishing of prizes and refreshments; that each would have equal control over the other in ... Peterson, 207 Or. 232, 295 P.2d 868; Tempest v. Richardson, 5 Utah 2d 174, 299 P.2d 124; Wood v. Wood, 8 Utah 2d 279, 333 P.2d 630; Biggs v. Bear, 320 Ill.App. 597, 51 N.E.2d 799; Laube v. Stevenson, 137 Conn. 469, 78 A.2d 693, 25 A.L.R.2d 592, Annotation 598, 600; Maher v. Voss, 7 ... ...
-
Walton v. Norphlett, 77-77
...us, although he be on the premises at the invitation of the owner, has no greater rights than a mere licensee. (Biggs v. Bear (1943), 320 Ill.App. 597, 51 N.E.2d 799.) In an effort to prevent the harsh application of this rule, the courts have strained to find some possible pecuniary relati......
-
Cunag v. McCarthy
...'licensee' rather than that appropriate to an 'invitee.' Krantz v. Nichols, 11 Ill.App.2d 37, 135 N.E.2d 816 (1956); Biggs v. Bear, 320 Ill.App. 597, 51 N.E.2d 799 (1943). Defendant assumes that Michigan law limits recovery by a 'licensee' to injuries occasioned by willful and wanton miscon......
-
Buchholz v. Steitz, 17531
...Tempest v. Richardson, 5 Utah 2d 174, 299 P.2d 124 (1956); Palter v. Zarnisky, 338 Mass. 256, 155 N.E.2d 158 (1959); Biggs v. Bear, 320 Ill.App. 597, 51 N.E.2d 799 (1943). Plaintiff cites decisions reaching contrary results, but all involved circumstances more favorable to the plaintiffs th......