Burrell v. Meads, 92A03-8804-CV-113
| Decision Date | 29 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 92A03-8804-CV-113,92A03-8804-CV-113 |
| Citation | 540 N.E.2d 115 |
| Parties | Thomas Matthew BURRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth A. MEADS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James R. Grossman, Trina M. Glusenkamp, Fort Wayne, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas W. Yoder, Robert T. Keen, Jr., Livingston Dildine Haynie & Yoder, Fort Wayne, for defendant-appellee.
This appeal is from summary judgment entered in favor of the landowner in a premises liability claim for personal injuries. The issue is whether under the undisputed facts Burrell might be deemed an invitee at the time he was injured. If he was merely a licensee, summary judgment was appropriate because there is no contention that Meads engaged in wilful or wanton misconduct. See Gaboury v. Ireland Road Grace Brethren (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 1310.
The record sustains the following facts which the trial court found were not in dispute: Burrell and Meads had been friends for years. Over the years each had helped the other with a variety of tasks, always without thought of compensation. Burrell often helped Meads around Meads' garage and Meads helped Burrell work on his car.
On August 9, 1986 Meads planned to install a drop ceiling in his garage. (He had previously done this by himself in another garage.) That day Burrell came by early in the morning and when he learned of Meads' plans, he offered to assist. He then left to run some errands but returned in the afternoon and along with Meads and two other friends, commenced installation of the drop ceiling.
After a portion of the ceiling had been installed it became necessary to remove a number of objects which had been stored on top of the rafters in the garage. These items included a large map mounted on fiberboard with a wooden frame, some vinyl siding, some plywood and a wooden sign. According to Meads deposition, he stated that "someone has to go up there and hand the stuff down." 1 Burrell took it upon himself to do this. After removing most of the objects, Burrell moved off the rafter upon which he had been squatting and knelt on the large map. A few moments later he fell through the map (which he had assumed was mounted on plywood) and fell to the floor sustaining the injuries sued upon.
Thus, the issue before us requires consideration of Burrell's status at the time he was injured because that dictates the duty owed by Meads. The traditional view, recently reaffirmed by our supreme court in Gaboury v. Ireland Road Grace Brethren (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 1310, is that if Burrell was merely a licensee at the time of his injury, then Meads' duty was to refrain from wilfully or wantonly injuring him or acting in a way to increase his peril. 446 N.E.2d at 1314. On the other hand, if he was an invitee then Meads owed to him the duty to use reasonable care for his safety.
Traditionally, invitee status has been employed to denote one who goes on the premises for the business benefit of the landowner (or occupier) or both parties. Hammond v. Allegretti (1974), 262 Ind. 82, 311 N.E.2d 821; Barbre v. Indianapolis Water Co. (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 1142. Thus, invitee status may be denied where a person enters a business establishment for reasons not related to the owner's purposes. J.C. Penney Co. v. Wesolek (1984), Ind.App., 465 N.E.2d 763 (); Standard Oil Co. v. Scoville (1961), 132 Ind.App. 521, 175 N.E.2d 711 ().
On the other hand, invitee status has been extended to a volunteer helper of a repairman called to the premises, Mullins v. Easton (1978), 176 Ind.App. 590, 376 N.E.2d 1178, and most recently to public invitees as defined by Restatement of Torts, Second, Sec. 332; Fleischer v. Hebrew Orthodox Congregation (1987), Ind.App., 504 N.E.2d 320, transfer denied (Pivarnik, J. and Givan, J. dissenting) (member of church congregation).
Here we are concerned with the status of the social guest, a status described by one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beresford v. Starkey
...(2) to refrain from acting in a way which would increase Beresford's peril, See Gaboury, 446 N.E.2d at 1314 and Burrell v. Meads (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 115, 116; and (3) to use reasonable care to warn an unaware licensee of concealed dangerous conditions which are known to the possess......
-
Burrell v. Meads
...alteration of our premises liability law might be appropriate but that any change should come from the Supreme Court. Burrell v. Meads (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 115. The Court of Appeals was certainly correct in positing that it is proper for common law judges to re-examine existing That......
-
Billingsley v. Brown
...Systems, Inc. (1990), Ind.App., 555 N.E.2d 1379, trans. denied (fall from grain bin ladder when climbing to fix bin); Burrell v. Meads (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 115, trans. pending (fall while installing drop ceiling); Swanson v. Shroat (1976), 169 Ind.App. 80, 345 N.E.2d 872 (fall while......
-
LeLoup v. LeLoup
...guest or licensee, that person's status is not elevated to that of an invitee by performing minor tasks. Recently, in Burrell v. Meads (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 115, this court was called upon to determine the status--invitee or licensee--of the plaintiff, Burrell, who was helping the de......