Garnier v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church of St. Louis, No. 53653
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | HENLEY; DONNELLY; STORCKMAN; DONNELLY |
| Citation | 446 S.W.2d 607 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 53653 |
| Parties | Ottelea P. GARNIER and George M. Garnier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, Defendant-Respondent. |
Page 607
v.
ST. ANDREW PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri,
Defendant-Respondent.
Gerritzen & Gerritzen, by Ray Gerritzen, St. Louis, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Robert E. Keaney, Moser, Marsalek, Carpenter, Cleary & Jaeckel, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
Forrest P. Carson, George A. Rozier, Jefferson City, Elliott P. Koenig, St. Louis, for amici curiae.
Carson, Inglish, Monaco & Coil, Jefferson City, for amicus curiae, Missouri Hospital Assn.
Rassieur, Long, Yawitz, Koenig & Schneider, St. Louis, for amicus curiae, Hospital Assn. of Metropolitan St. Louis.
HENLEY, Chief Justice.
This is an action in two counts by wife and her husband against a church for damages for personal injuries and loss of services. The total amount prayed for is $45,000. Allegations of the petition are, in substance, that while entering the church to attend services Sunday, March 5, 1967, Mrs. Garnier, as a result of defendant's negligence, slipped and fell on the water-covered slick tile floor of the church entranceway and was injured. Defendant moved for summary judgment, alleging that it is, and owns and holds the church premises as, a benevolent, religious, nonprofit corporation and charitable institution and, therefore, is immune from liability for its torts. The motion was sustained, judgment was entered for defendant, and plaintiffs appealed.
This case presents the same question as that presented and decided in
Page 608
Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's, Mo., 446 S.W.2d 599, handed down concurrently herewith. The reasons given in our opinion in that case for abandoning the doctrine of charitable immunity apply no less to churches than to hospitals 1 and we would reverse and remand without further discussion were we not faced with a point raised in respondent's brief in this case not raised in the Abernathy case.Respondent raises the point and contends for the first time on appeal that plaintiffs' petition fails to state a claim for relief in that, although plaintiffs pleaded Mrs. Garnier was an invitee and that respondent failed to exercise ordinary care for her safety, the fact is Mrs. Garnier was a licensee and, therefore, plaintiffs were required to plead willful and wanton misconduct on the part of respondent.
As indicated, respondent did not make this allegation in its motion for summary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Dell v. School Dist. of Independence, No. 57474
...bear the loss than to impose it on the entire congregation. We have rejected this philosophy. Garnier v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, 446 S.W.2d 607 (Mo. banc 1969). A third basis of the doctrine, mentioned in earlier Missouri cases was the old concept that the king could do no wrong. Se......
-
Gibson v. Brewer, No. 79291
...a person who slipped and fell on church premises to sue for negligence. Garnier v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church of St. Louis, 446 S.W.2d 607, 608 (Mo. banc 1969). "The result is that the church, as the owner and occupier of the premises in question, is subject to all the duties and liabil......
-
Jones v. State Highway Commission, No. 60017
...which would then be forced to suffer an inconvenience. This concept was rejected by us in Garnier v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, 446 S.W.2d 607 (Mo. banc Third, the often quoted maxim that the king can do no wrong has been offered frequently to justify the continued existence of the doc......
-
Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's, No. 53883
...agents and employees. We abolish the doctrine. This case and another, Garnier et al. v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church of St. Louis, Mo., 446 S.W.2d 607, presenting the same question and decided concurrently herewith, were first briefed, argued and submitted in Division. Those submissions w......
-
O'Dell v. School Dist. of Independence, No. 57474
...bear the loss than to impose it on the entire congregation. We have rejected this philosophy. Garnier v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, 446 S.W.2d 607 (Mo. banc 1969). A third basis of the doctrine, mentioned in earlier Missouri cases was the old concept that the king could do no wrong. Se......
-
Gibson v. Brewer, No. 79291
...a person who slipped and fell on church premises to sue for negligence. Garnier v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church of St. Louis, 446 S.W.2d 607, 608 (Mo. banc 1969). "The result is that the church, as the owner and occupier of the premises in question, is subject to all the duties and liabil......
-
Jones v. State Highway Commission, No. 60017
...which would then be forced to suffer an inconvenience. This concept was rejected by us in Garnier v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church, 446 S.W.2d 607 (Mo. banc Third, the often quoted maxim that the king can do no wrong has been offered frequently to justify the continued existence of the doc......
-
Abernathy v. Sisters of St. Mary's, No. 53883
...agents and employees. We abolish the doctrine. This case and another, Garnier et al. v. St. Andrew Presbyterian Church of St. Louis, Mo., 446 S.W.2d 607, presenting the same question and decided concurrently herewith, were first briefed, argued and submitted in Division. Those submissions w......