Mazey v. Loveland
| Decision Date | 02 June 1916 |
| Docket Number | 19,746 - (120) |
| Citation | 158 N.W. 44,133 Minn. 210 |
| Parties | AGNES J. MAZEY v. WILLIAM A. LOVELAND |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $10,000 for personal injury received in passing from defendant's house to the street and $500 for expenses incurred. The answer alleged that at the time of the accident plaintiff was in the employ of a corporation and engaged in the performance of the duties of her employment on behalf of the corporation and that both she and the corporation had duly accepted the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and were subject to the provisions thereof. The case was tried before Fish, J., who when plaintiff rested granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Duty of landowner to warn licensee upon premises.
Plaintiff was upon the premises of defendant at his invitation for the transaction of certain business with him; upon the completion of her mission and in taking her departure therefrom, instead of passing down the walk extending from the building to the street, she cut across the yard and came in contact with a wire stretched along the outer edge of the premises by defendant to keep persons from trespassing upon the lawn, and was injured. It is held that on leaving the premises in the manner stated plaintiff became a mere licensee, took the premises as she found them, and defendant was under no legal duty to warn her of the presence of the wire even though he observed her going in the direction of the same.
Louis A. Hubachek and William A. Tautges, for appellant.
Benton & Morley, for respondent.
Defendant's residence is situated at the corner of Sheridan avenue and Kenwood boulevard in the city of Minneapolis. The plot of ground on which the building stands is several feet above the grade of the adjoining streets, and is terraced in the usual manner. At the top of the terraced embankment defendant had stretched a wire parallel with Sheridan avenue at a height of about two feet, supported by gas pipes driven into the ground. The purpose of this evidently was to keep persons from crossing the yard lawn. On the evening of May 20, 1914 plaintiff called at the residence of defendant for the purpose of estimating the cost of certain floral decorations to be placed in the home for an approaching wedding. She was taken to the place by her husband in his automobile, and entered the premises by the usual walk extending to and from the boulevard. During the time plaintiff was occupied in estimating the cost of the decorations, the husband had driven the automobile to a point near the house on Sheridan avenue, and there awaited her return. There was no passageway from the house to Sheridan avenue, where the automobile was in waiting, and, instead of passing down the walk by way of which she entered the premises and then around the corner to the automobile plaintiff cut across the lawn, tripped over the wire above referred to and was thrown and injured. She thereafter brought this action to recover for her injuries, alleging as a basis thereof that defendant was present at the time plaintiff started across the lawn toward the waiting automobile; that he observed her movements in this respect, knew of the presence of the wire, and was under legal duty and obligation...
To continue reading
Request your trial