Glenn v. Munson
| Decision Date | 09 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38051,38051 |
| Citation | 106 N.W.2d 551,259 Minn. 180 |
| Parties | Ethel GLENN, Respondent, v. Roland W. MUNSON and Patricia Munson, Appellants. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Where an existing condition which is known to a gratuitous licensee to be safe is changed without her knowledge so as to render it hazardous, and the possessor of real estate knows that such changed condition is likely to cause injury to such licensee, failure to give warning of the existing danger may be a breach of duty which constitutes negligence under the rule we follow.
Mahoney & Mahoney, Edward R. Kenneally, Minneapolis, for appellants.
Neumeier, Rheinberger & Eckberg, Stillwater, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff.
Plaintiff, Ethel Glenn, age 67 years, is the mother of defendant Patricia Munson and the mother-in-law of defendant Roland W. Munson. Plaintiff is a registered nurse but is no longer active in her profession. Defendants lived in Stillwater, in this state, and plaintiff lived not far away. She frequently visited at the Munson home sometimes once and sometimes twice during a week. On the evening of January 10, 1959, about 5 p.m., she received a call from her daughter informing her that defendants' child Beth had been hurt while sliding and asking plaintiff to come and look her over. She proceeded to do so, arriving at the Munson home between 5:30 and 6:30 p.m. After seeing Beth, she gave her a drink of water. Beth was nauseated and vomited into a receptacle. Plaintiff asked Patricia what to do with the receptacle and was advised to take it to the kitchen. She proceeded to do so, and as she entered the kitchen she stepped on a small rug on the linoleum floor, slipped, and fell, receiving the injuries for which she now seeks to recover.
The kitchen floor on which plaintiff fell was covered with inlaid linoleum. There was a light over the sink which partly illuminated the kitchen. Prior to October or November 1954 Patricia had waxed the floor but at that time discontinued doing so for the reason that she had small children. During the time that plaintiff had visited at her daughter's home she had been in the kitchen on numerous occasions, but during all of that time the floor had not been waxed. On the evening of January 9, Patricia applied three coats of Johnson's clear self-polishing liquid wax to the linoleum floor, leaving it in a glossy and slippery condition. Prior to the time when plaintiff entered the kitchen and fell, she had not been in the kitchen since the floor was waxed and did not have any knowledge that it was slippery from such waxing. Patricia had warned her children to be careful in walking on the floor because of its slippery condition. Defendants had not warned plaintiff that the floor had been waxed or that it was in a slippery condition.
The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendants thereafter moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which motion was denied. Judgment was entered upon the verdict of the jury, and this appeal is from such judgment.
The court instructed the jury as a matter of law that plaintiff was a gratuitous licensee. The correctness of that instruction is not before us on this appeal. The only question here is whether, under the facts of this case, it appears as a matter of law that defendants were free from negligence
We are committed to the rule of Restatement, Torts, § 342, respecting the duties owed by the possessor of real estate to a gratuitous licensee. 1 That rule is:
'A...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sandstrom v. AAD Temple Bldg. Ass'n, 38742
...known to the landowner or occupant. 3 In the recent cases of Malmquist v. Leeds, 245 Minn. 130, 71 N.W.2d 863, and Glenn v. Munson, 259 Minn. 180, 106 N.W.2d 551, we considered the duty the possessor owed to the social guest and concluded that, although under the facts in those cases plaint......
-
Carlson v. Rand
...that this duty is the same as the duty imposed upon the owner or occupier of land. That duty was discussed in Glenn v. Munson, 259 Minn. 180, 181, 106 N.W.2d 551, 552, cited by plaintiff, wherein we said that we are committed to the rule of Restatement, Torts, § 342, respecting the duties o......
-
Thayer v. Silker
...1 Sauter v. Sauter, 244 Minn. 482, 486, 70 N.W.2d 351, 354.2 Meyer v. Mitchell, 248 Minn. 397, 402, 80 N.W.2d 450, 454; Glenn v. Munson, 259 Minn. 180, 106 N.W.2d 551.3 'A possessor of land is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to gratuitous licensees by a natural or artificial con......
-
Holland v. Hedenstad
...272, 146 N.W.2d 190; Sandstrom v. AAD Temple Building Assn. Inc., 267 Minn. 407, 127 N.W.2d 173; Thayer v. Silker, Supra; Glenn v. Munson, 259 Minn. 180, 106 N.W.2d 551. Applying these principles to the case at hand, one can easily say that defendants were not engaging in any hazardous acti......