Lomberg v. Renner
| Decision Date | 01 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 176,176 |
| Citation | 157 A.2d 222,121 Vt. 311 |
| Parties | Frances LOMBERG v. Edward RENNER and Irma Renner. |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
Richard E. Davis, Barre, John P. Morrissey, Bennington, for plaintiff.
Ryan, Smith & Carbine, Rutland, for defendants.
Before HULBURD, C. J., and HOLDEN, SHANGRAW, BARNEY and SMITH, JJ.
In this action the plaintiff, Frances Lomberg seeks to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while a social guest at the home of the defendants. The plaintiff, Frances Lomberg, claims to have received these injuries when, without fault on her part, she fell down a cellar stairway located inside the premises owned and occupied by the defendants in this action.
At the close of all the evidence in the plaintiff's case the defendants moved the court to direct a verdict in their favor upon grounds which may be summarized as follows:
1. The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff disclosed that Mrs. Lomberg was a social guest or gratuitous licensee, on the premises of the defendants at the time of her injury, and that there was no duty on the part of the defendants to the plaintiff to warn her of any dangerous condition that might have existed on the defendant's premises, nor was there any duty on their part to make the premises reasonably safe for the plaintiff.
2. That if the defendants did owe any duty to the plaintiff that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
The trial court granted the motions of the defendants on each of the grounds above stated, and directed a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff brings the case here upon her exceptions to the directed verdict and to the action of the trial court in granting the motion.
Viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff the jury could reasonably have found the following facts.
Both the plaintiff and the defendants are residents of Sandgate, Vermont and have been for some time in the past. The parties have been on a friendly basis for some seven or eight years prior to the date of this accident. The defendants often visited the plaintiff and would enter her house frequently by the kitchen or back door, without knocking. The plaintiff had also visited the defendants in the past, entering their house by the front door.
The house in which the accident occurred was a new home, built by the defendants, which had been under construction since about 1955. This house had never been visited by the plaintiff until the date of this accident.
The new house of the defendants is located on the west side of a highway that runs in a northerly-southerly direction. There is a doorway into the house on the side fronting the highway, and there is another, or side door, on the northerly side of the house. This side door enters directly into the living room of the house, and the door opens to the left of a person entering from the outside. At the right of a person entering the house by this door is a flight of stairs descending into the basement of the house.
The edge of the top tread of this stairway is just five inches to the right of the inside of the doorway and there is no guard rail, door or other protective device at the top of this cellar stairway. The stairway descends to the basement, a distance of six feet, ten and one-half inches, by means of ten steps or treads.
The plaintiff, Mrs. Lomberg, telephoned to the defendant, Mrs. Renner, either on the day of the accident or on the day before, to tell her that she would call on her to see the new home. She stated that she would call 'after dinner.' Dinnertime in Sandgate comes at noon and was so understood by both ladies.
The plaintiff was driven to the home of the defendants by a Miss Sarry and arrived there a little after 2 P.M. on August 21, 1957. At that time both the front and side doors were closed, but not locked. Mrs. Lomberg made no attempt to enter the house by the front door but passed it and went to the side door. She picked up a slip of paper that was under the door and, without knocking, entered the side door. Through a window in this door she could see into the interior before entering and described it as 'well lighted, but dim.'
Upon entering the house she turned to close the door and fell down the basement stairway previously described. During this time the defendant, Mrs. Renner, was engaged in mowing the lawn and had no knowledge that Mrs. Lomberg was on her premises. She first saw the plaintiff when, in response to the excitement of her dogs, she entered her house and found Mrs. Lomberg, lying injured, at the foot of the basement stairs.
It was conceded by all parties to this action that Mrs. Lomberg was a social guest, or gratuitous licensee, on the premises of the defendants at the time of her ill-fated visit.
This Court in Wool v. Larner, 112 Vt. 431, at pages 434 and 435, 26 A.2d 89, 92, stated that in order to avoid confusion in the use of the terms 'invitee' and 'invitee in the technical sense' the court adopted the following definitions from the Restatement of Torts:
This Court was presented with the question in Wool v. Larner whether the plaintiff in that cause was a gratuitous licensee or a business visitor. Holding that the plaintiff was a business visitor, the Court had no occasion to define the duties of a host towards a social guest.
In the case of Watterlund v. Billings, 112 Vt. 256, 260, 23 A.2d 540, 542, the plaintiff was a licensee, but not a social guest upon the premises of the defendant. The Court used the following language to set forth the duty of an owner or occupier of the premises towards a bare licensee. 'While they were not bound to keep the premises safe for her, or to warn her of their dangerous condition, they owed her the duty of active care to protect her from injuries from force negligently brought to bear upon her.' And, in the earlier case of Lucas v. Kelley, 102 Vt. 173, 147 A. 281, in which the plaintiff had been held to be a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoar v. Sherburne Corporation
...is unaware, the only duty imposed on the owner is "not to do any willful or wanton act to injure the guest." Lomberg v. Renner, 121 Vt. 311, 315, 157 A.2d 222, 225 (1959); see Garafano v. Neshobe Beach Club, 126 Vt. 566, 569, 238 A.2d 70 But as the Supreme Court of Vermont has pointed out, ......
-
Kight v. Bowman
...See Annot. entitled 'Liability for injury to guest in home or similar premises', 25 A.L.R.2d 598, 600. See also Lomberg v. Renner, 121 Vt. 311, 157 A.2d 222, 225 (1959); Lubenow v. Cook, 137 Conn. 611, 79 A.2d 826, 828 (1951); comment i to Restatement (Second) of Torts § 342 (1965), entitle......
-
Garafano v. Neshobe Beach Club, Inc.
...60 Vt. 249, 254, 15 A. 117. Each defendant contends that plaintiff was a gratuitous licensee, or social guest, and cite Lomberg v. Renner, 121 Vt. 311, 315, 157 A.2d 222 as authority supporting their contention. However, the facts in that case are dissimilar to those in the present case. He......
-
Menard v. Lavoie
...to a social guest when the guest suffers injury as a result of active or affirmative negligence by the landlord. Lomberg v. Renner, 121 Vt. 311, 315, 157 A.2d 222, 225 (1960). A "social guest" is one who enters or remains on land with the consent of the landowner. Id. at 314, 157 A.2d at 22......
-
Ruminations
...(2006): ¶ 25. "Frosted" is deserving of its own investigation as a term of derision in Supreme Court decisions. [10] Lomberg v. Renner, 121 Vt. 311, 315 (1959). [11] State v. Jarvis, 89 Vt. 239 (1915). [12] Shum's Adm'x v. Rutland R. Co., 81 Vt. 186 (1908). [13] Crosby v. School Dist. No. 9......