Frankel v. Kurtz
Decision Date | 25 March 1965 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4611. |
Citation | 239 F. Supp. 713 |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
Parties | Bertha FRANKEL, Plaintiff, v. Sylvia F. KURTZ, Defendant. |
Vernon E. Sumwalt, and B. D. Hayes, Rock Hill, S. C., for plaintiff.
C. W. F. Spencer, Jr., Rock Hill, S. C., for defendant.
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56, Fed.Rules of Civ.Proc., initiated January 7, 1965, attacking, as part of the basis therefor, plaintiff's complaint, and plaintiff's following motion to amend under Rule 15 (a), induce present consideration in this forum.
Significant allegations of the original complaint read:
In its general denial as part answer defendant inter alia avers:
Defendant's motion lies whenever, and only whenever, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact.1 In this dispute the bare allegation of the pleadings come under the spotlight of judicial search.
This Court is of the opinion issues of fact are joined by the pleadings. Plaintiff alleges unknown and unwarned ditches along a walkway, obscured and latently dangerous, of which defendant had previous experience and knowledge, and that notification to plaintiff was not forthcoming despite defendant's knowledge of the "existence of the hazard." Defendant denies the danger, denies knowledge or "negligence on her part." At this point, a decision is a necessary projection.
But, defendant argues, plaintiff alleges that the acts and delicts alleged constitute at most simple negligence, upon which recovery cannot be based. Plaintiff's motion seeks to salvage by amendment to characterize the delicts as "gross negligence, heedlessness and recklessness" instead of simple negligence.
Admittedly plaintiff did not move to amend within twenty days of the filing of his complaint on April 20, 1964, nor enjoys, at this sitting, previous leave of the Court or written consent of the adverse party. Plaintiff must hang her hat, so to speak, on the statutory largess that "leave to amend shall be freely given, when justice so requires."2 The reason for the inclusion of this liberality has been repeatedly construed as being in the interest of avoiding technicality and facilitating a proper decision on the merits.3 As is declared in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 179, 182, 83 S.Ct. 227, 230, 9 L.Ed.2d 222:
While this court dislikes the term "mandate" as classified in the annotations under 28 U.S.C.A. Rules 15,4 the definition of duty, policy, responsibility, rings clear.
But, we now enquire, if plaintiff can amend, proceed, what is the law of the case?
Plaintiff and defendant join in designating, and/or classifying, the plaintiff as a "social guest", a term, or a category, not hitherto treated as such, or by such name, in South Carolina common law, or by statute. This Court, then, is saddled with the question of whether the classification connotes a definition of variety and distinction all its own. This Court thinks not.
A social guest is a licensee. "A licensee is a person who is privileged to enter upon land by virtue of the possessor's consent. The possessor is under no obligation to exercise care to make the premises safe for his reception, and is under no duty toward him except:
In the instant case plaintiff was a gratuitous licensee. If a danger is not hidden from her, is patent, and an ordinary woman of reason and prudence would reasonably and normally be expected to see and avoid same, defendant possessor owes no duty to warn. If a danger is present, hidden, latent, and defendant possessor (owner) knows, and fails to warn, or not knowing, fails to warn because of lack of ordinary reason and prudence to discover, and plaintiff is injured, plaintiff can recover.
A "social guest" is the same as a "social visitor", "guest" or "licensee". With or without invitation to visit, the duty of the host is to refrain from wilful and wanton injury. Knox v. Goodman, 45 N.J.Super. 428, 133 A.2d 50. See also Cunag v. McCarthy, 42 Ill.App. 2d 36, 191 N.E.2d 404, 407; Drutman v. Agar, 17 Misc.2d 291, 185 N.Y.S.2d 142, 144.
This Court determines, from a review of authorities that the requirement of knowledge (or the requirement of discovery in order that knowledge can be realized by the application of ordinary reason and prudence under the circumstances) of the defect or danger supposes liability...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sims v. Giles
...but one who is privileged to enter or remain on the premises only by the property owner's express or implied consent. Frankel v. Kurtz, 239 F.Supp. 713 (W.D.S.C.1965). The most common example of a licensee is the social guest. See F.P. Hubbard & R.L. Felix, The South Carolina Law of Torts 1......
-
Chrisley v. United States
...of the premises which may be dangerous to him, and which the possessor may be reasonably expected to discover. Frankel v. Kurtz, 239 F.Supp. 713, 717 (W.D.S.C.1965). If the danger, however, is not hidden from the licensee but rather is patent, and an ordinary person of reason and prudence w......
-
Doe v. Batson
...of the premises which may be dangerous to him, and which he may reasonably be expected to discover. Id. (quoting Frankel v. Kurtz, 239 F.Supp. 713, 717 (W.D.S.C. 1965)) (emphasis in At a minimum, the victims in this case were social guests in Batson's home. Therefore, the law imposes upon B......
-
Amick v. GOODING AMUSEMENT COMPANY
...is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the defense is good as a matter of law, the motion should be granted." 3 Frankel v. Kurtz, D.C., 239 F.Supp. 713. Mickle v. Lipstock, E.D.S.C.1965, 39 F.R.D. 58. 4 Wilkinson v. Powell, 149 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1945); Surkin v. Charteris, 197 F.......