Dry v. Ford, 41360

Decision Date01 February 1960
Docket NumberNo. 41360,41360
PartiesRoy DRY, a Minor, by L. P. Dry, Father and Next Friend, v. M. T. FORD, d.b.a. Leader Motor Company and George Pitts.
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Quitman Ross, Laurel, for appellant.

Melvin, Melvin & Melvin, Laurel, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Justice.

This case involves a tort claim by one who entered premises as a business invitee, but whose status changed thereafter, we think, to that of a licensee, by using the premises for purposes not included in his invitation. The Circuit Court of Jones County, Second Judicial District, gave a peremptory instruction for the defendants, appellees here. We affirm that decision.

Appellant Roy Dry worked for Brown hauling turnip greens. Upon returning to Laurel, they purchased a dimmer switch for Brown's pickup truck, and drove to a garage owned by appellee Ford. With the truck in the garage's entrance, they asked the foreman if a mechanic could install the dimmer switch. Since the time was 4:45 P. M., the foreman advised Brown that they did not have time that day to fix it. Brown asked him if it would be all right for them to install the switch themselves, and he 'said it would.' Brown backed the car out of the entrance and pulled it to the right of the door, about 1 1/2 feet from the driveway into the garage. Dry got under Brown's truck to hand the switch up to Brown. His feet were sticking out from under the truck about two feet, so they were partly upon the driveway. At that time defendant Pitts, a mechanic, was driving a car from the lot into the garage for the night. He drove up to the entrance, backed his car to get a better angle, and while pulling into the garage ran over and injured Dry's foot.

When plaintiff entered the business premises of defendants, he entered as an implied business invitee. However, the undisputed evidence shows that the implied invitation terminated when defendants' foreman advised plaintiff and his employer Brown that they could not install the dimmer switch that day, and when Brown asked for and received permission for him and Dry to install the switch themselves on the premises of the motor company. Plaintiff was acting thereafter solely for his own benefit and convenience.

Possessors of premises have the duty to use reasonable care with reference to invitees on their business property. That duty is coextensive with the invitation. An inviter's duty and corres-ponding liability for breach of duty are measured and limited by the nature of the invitation held out to the invitee. If the latter goes beyond the bounds of his invitation, as Dry did here, he loses the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Skelton By and Through Roden v. Twin County Rural Elec. Ass'n, 90-CA-0523
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 31 Diciembre 1992
    ...see also Payne, 540 So.2d at 38 (visitors after business hours held status of licensees, not business invitees); Dry v. Ford, 238 Miss. 98, 101-02, 117 So.2d 456, 458 (1960) (plaintiff suffering injury while working on his own car in a another's service station was licensee, since "inviter'......
  • Hughes v. Star Homes, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 16 Enero 1980
    ...v. Milner Enterprises, 233 So.2d 524 (Miss.1970); Marlon Investment Co. v. Conner, 246 Miss. 343, 149 So.2d 312 (1963); Dry v. Ford, 238 Miss. 98, 117 So.2d 456 (1960). A landowner owes a trespasser the duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him. McGee v. Charles F. Smith & Son......
  • Hall v. Cagle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 28 Septiembre 2000
    ...defendant's mother injured herself while stepping in a bowl of dog food and was thereafter confined to bed rest); Dry v. Ford, 238 Miss. 98, 102, 117 So.2d 456, 458 (1960) (a person can lose the status of invitee when his actions go beyond the bounds of the ¶ 30. Despite the above exception......
  • White v. Mississippi Power & Light Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 27 Febrero 1967
    ...788, 183 So.2d 150 (Miss.1966); Miss. Power & Light Co. v. Walters, 248 Miss. 206, 158 So.2d 2, 160 So.2d 908 (1963); Dry v. Ford, 238 Miss. 98, 117 So.2d 456 (1960); Bishop v. Stewart, 234 Miss. 409, 106 So.2d 899 (1958); Murry Chevrolet Co. v. Cotten, 169 Miss. 521, 152 So. 657 The judgme......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT