Howard v. Ammons

• Decision Date: 23 November 1965
• Parties: Minnie Lorraine HOWARD v. George W. AMMONS and Ruby K. Ammons. James E. HOWARD v. George W. AMMONS and Ruby K. Ammons.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 875

402 S.W.2d 875

55 Tenn.App. 531

Minnie Lorraine HOWARD v. George W. AMMONS and Ruby K. Ammons.

James E. HOWARD v. George W. AMMONS and Ruby K. Ammons.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Eastern Section.

Nov. 23, 1965.

Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court April 18, 1966.

Crawford & Crawford, Maryville, for appellants.

Rom Meares, Sr., and Rom Meares, Jr., Maryville, for appellees.

PARROTT, Judge.

The plaintiffs have appealed from the action of the Circuit Judge in directing a verdict in favor of the defendants at the close of plaintiffs' proof.

Mrs. Minnie Lorraine Howard and her husband brought these suits for personal injuries, medical expense and loss of services resulting from a fall of Mrs. Howard on the walkway of the home of the defendants Mr. and Mrs. George W. Ammons. Mrs. Ammons is a sister to Mr. Howard.

On December 17, 1962, about 9:30 a.m. Mrs. Howard received a telephone call from Mrs. Ammons informing her she had fallen and hurt her head and asked plaintiff to take her to the hospital. In response to this call, plaintiff fell on the front walk of defendants' home and brought this suit seeking damages for injuries resulting from the fall.

We gather from the trial judge's remarks in directing this verdict he had some question in his mind as to the plaintiff's status--invitee or social guest. It is true plaintiff is a member of the family and on numerous occasions had been a social guest in defendants' home. We hold under the facts and circumstances of this visit, plaintiff is an invitee. She came to the premises at the request of the owner and for the sole purpose of taking defendant to the hospital which must be considered beneficial to the defendant. Being an invitee the owner owed a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Kendall Oil Co. v. Payne, 41 Tenn.App. 201, 293 S.W.2d 40.

Immediately after receiving the call, Mrs. Howard called her husband and advised him of the fall. She then left her home and proceeded to the defendants' house by car. Upon arrival, she parked in the driveway at a concrete walk leading from the drive to the front door. As she proceeded onto the concrete walkway, she fell. The walkway was painted a bluishgray color and was covered with a thin sheet of ice. Mrs. Howard testified she did not observe the ice until after she had fallen. She did not expect ice to be on the walkway, had seen no ice anywhere on this morning and was taking no extra precautions but if she had looked closely, she could have seen the ice.

The proof shows the weather was cold and crisp. Mr. Howard, a school bus operator, observed no ice anywhere on his morning bus run or at the Ammons home. He entered by the front door but did not use the walkway upon which plaintiff fell.

There is no direct evidence the defendant, Mrs. Ammons, knew of the icy condition of the walkway. Neither is it shown where she had fallen. It is shown Mr. Howard arrived at the defendants' house prior to his wife and he and Mrs. Ammons heard Mrs. Howard's car drive up and Mrs. Ammons exclaimed, 'Oh, she'll fall too.'

From this exclamation it is our belief that reasonable minds could draw different conclusions, one being Mrs. Ammons had fallen on the same ice and, therefore, knew of the existing condition. If this conclusion should be reached by the jury, it would be for them to determine as to whether the owner had knowledge of a dangerous condition on the premises and failed to warn plaintiff. Management Services, Inc. v. Hellman, 40 Tenn.App. 127, 289 S.W.2d 711. Likewise the question of the plaintiff's contributory negligence would be a question for the jury. McBroom v. S. E. Greyhound Lines, 29 Tenn.App. 13, 193 S.W.2d 92. Also it would be a question for the jury to determine whether...