McHenry v. Howells
Decision Date | 30 June 1954 |
Citation | 201 Or. 697,272 P.2d 210 |
Parties | McHENRY v. HOWELLS et al. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Orval Thompson, Albany, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Mark V. Weatherford and Sam Kyle, Albany.
George H. Fraser, Portland, argued the case for respondents. With him on the brief were Warren A. McMinimee, Tillamook, and Cleveland C. Cory and Patricia A. Young, Portland.
Before LATOURETTE, C. J., and LUSK, BRAND and TOOZE, JJ.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries suffered as the result of alleged negligence, brought by plaintiff Georgia McHenry against Horace W. Howells and Jane Howells, his wife, as defendants. The trial court sustained defendants' motion for an involuntary nonsuit and dismissed the action. Plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff resides at Corvallis, Oregon. She is the mother of the defendant Jane Howells. On Monday, February 4, 1951, plaintiff went to Toledo in an automobile driven by her husband. Defendant Jane Howells picked up her mother at Toledo and took her to the Howells home in Newport for a social visit of several days.
Defendants built their Newport home in 1946, but in 1949 or 1950, they remodeled it. At that time a stairway from the first to the second floor was constructed. The steps of the stairway were built of knotty pine wood and were of natural color. They were as wide as ordinary steps and had a rise of approximately seven inches. The siding of the stairway was covered with light-colored wall board. The wall-to-wall carpet in the hall at the bottom of the stairway was dark red. The door at the bottom of the stairway was opposite a window covered with heavy drapes, and this door opened outward toward a bedroom. The bottom of the door was constructed flush with the top of the first step.
Lighting was available to the stairway from three sources: (1) outdoor light from a window directly opposite the stairway door; (2) electric lamps in a den which opened into the hall; and (3) an electric light in the attic at the top of the stairway.
This stairway was the scene of plaintiff's mishap on Thursday morning, February 8, 1951. On previous visits to her daughter's home, and had been up and down the stairs a half dozen times, more or less, without any difficulty, but on this particular visit she had not had occasion to use the stairway prior to the accident.
Just prior to the accident, plaintiff had decided to assist her daughter by doing some ironing while her daughter was absent from the house. She had ascended the stairs to see if the clothes hanging in the attic were sufficiently dry to be ironed. Some of her own wearing apparel was included. Taking a few of the articles on her arm, intending to return later with a clothes basket to get the remainder, plaintiff started down the stairs. The stairway door was open. While descending the stairs she had reached the second step from the bottom and from appearances being impressed that it was the bottom step, she stepped forward thinking she was stepping out on the floor, when in fact she was two steps up. As a result, she suffered a bad fall, causing the personal injuries of which she complains.
Upon the express invitation of defendants, plaintiff was a social guest in their home, enjoying their hospitality. No element of business was connected with her visit in the home, and hence, she was in no sense a 'business invitee', as that term is defined in the law of negligence. Her status was that of a licensee, and the duty owed to her by defendants was the duty owed by an owner, possessor, or occupant of land to a licensee. The authorities are quite uniform in so holding. Some difficulty has been experienced by the courts in classifying the status of a social guest. In an exhaustive note in 25 A.L.R.2d 598, 600, the author says:
'The terminology of status (that is, the classification into invitees, licensees, and trespassers) used in classifying the liability of an owner, possessor, or occupant of land to one injured while on the land due to defects therein has caused some difficulty in discussing the issue of liability to a social guest in a home who is injured by the defective condition of the property, since, while such a guest is clearly on the property as the result of an 'invitation' in the layman's sense of that word, the authorities have universally agreed that he should not be entitled to the same degree of care for his safety as one who is on the property of another as what is sometimes called a 'business invitee', that is, for the purpose of conferring some benefit other than purely social.
'Despite the express or implied invitation upon which the social guest relies in coming to his host's premises, the courts have concurred in classifying him as a 'licensee' of some sort * * *.'
In 38 Am.Jur. 778, Negligence, § 117, it is stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wilson v. Bogert
...600. The fact that the guest may be rendering a minor, incidental service to the host does not change the relationship. McHenry v. Howells, 201 Or. 697, 272 P.2d 210; Pearlstein v. Leeds, 52 N.J.Super. 450, 145 A.2d 650; O'Brien v. Shea, 326 Mass. 681, 96 N.E.2d 163; Krantz v. Nichols, 11 I......
-
Ulwelling v. Crown Coach Corp.
...or trap--"a danger which a person who does not know the premises could not avoid by reasonable care and skill." (McHenry v. Howells, 201 Or. 697, 272 P.2d 210, 213.) Nor is there error in the court's failure to include in the instruction a statement that the driver, due to his imminent peri......
-
Ragnone v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J
...225 Or. 30, 356 P.2d 1069 (1960); Burch v. Peterson, 207 Or. 232, 295 P.2d 868 (1956) (friend to play bridge); McHenry v. Howells, 201 Or. 697, 272 P.2d 210 (1954) (mother visiting "The allegations of negligence in the above quoted specifications #2 and #4 of the plaintiff's second amended ......
-
Speece v. Browne
...156 N.Y.S.2d 85, affirmed 3 N.Y.2d 725, 163 N.Y.S.2d 966, 143 N.E. 514; Murrell v. Handley, 245 N.C. 559, 96 S.E.2d 717; Mc-Henry v. Howells, 201 Or. 697, 272 P.2d 210, although factually distinguishable from the present case, are not inconsistent with the conclusions herein reached. In eac......
-
Laws governing recreational access to waters of the Columbia Basin: a survey and analysis.
...(concluding that the only duty to a trespasser is to avoid "willful or wanton" acts that may cause injury). (107) McHenry v. Howells, 272 P.2d 210, 212 (Or. 1954) (holding that an owner was not liable to plaintiff mother who fell down stairs; steps were an obvious hazard); Bates v. E. Idaho......