Murdock v. Petersen
| Decision Date | 11 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 4086,4086 |
| Parties | Marion MURDOCK, Appellant, v. James PETERSEN and Edna Petersen, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Nada Novakovich, Reno, for appellant.
Woodburn, Forman, Wedge, Blakey & Thompson, Reno, for respondents.
On this appeal we are concerned with the question whether one gratuitously performing services for a home owner at the owner's request and present in the home for that purpose, is an invitee of the owner or a mere licensee. We have concluded that under the facts of this case the visitor was an invitee.
This appeal is taken by the plaintiff below from judgment rendered in favor of defendant pursuant to jury verdict. Several assignments of error are made. We shall confine our consideration to one which we have concluded requires reversal. This error was in instructing the jury that plaintiff was a licensee and in applying to the case the standard of care owing to licensees by the owner of the premises.
The following instruction was given:
Defendant was injured in an explosion occurring in Reno on February 5, 1957 and was confined to her bed as a result. She called plaintiff, a friend and neighbor, requesting plaintiff to come to defendant's home to help with the house work and in caring for her. For a period of some days thereafter plaintiff assisted defendant at the latter's home. On February 9 at the defendant's home plaintiff was preparing dinner. She left the kitchen to go to the bathroom, took the door to the basement by mistake, fell down the stairs and sustained injuries. This action for damages was then brought.
Plaintiff contends that the platform at the top of the basement stairs was too small for safety and that in maintaining such a hazardous condition defendant was guilty of negligence. Considering the nature of the asserted negligence, the instruction given was in practical effect tantamount to an instructed verdict for the defendant. The jury was told that defendant was under no duty to the plaintiff to correct the condition. If the status of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., Docket No. 199136
...rather than a volunteer. 1 See Milbank Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dairyland Ins. Co., 373 N.W.2d 888, 893 (N.D., 1985); Murdock v. Petersen, 74 Nev. 363, 365, 332 P.2d 649 (1958). In both Diefenbach and Pace, the master's servant allegedly solicited the help of the injured person or invited the injur......
-
O'Keefe v. South End Rowing Club
...187 A.2d 708, 715; accord, Dowd v. Portsmouth Hospital (1963) 105 N.H. 53, 193 A.2d 788, 790--792, 95 A.L.R.2d 986; Murdock v. Petersen (1958) 74 Nev. 363, 332 P.2d 649, 650; Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Kane (1957) 213 Md. 152, 131 A.2d 470, 473--475; cf. Le Roux v. State (1954) 307 N.Y. 397, ......
-
Village Development Co. v. Filice
...not precisely the same. This error may not be cast aside as harmless since it bears directly upon duty and liability. Murdock v. Petersen, 74 Nev. 363, 332 P.2d 649 (1958). (b). The possible liability of Village Development based upon fraudulent misrepresentation also was presented to the j......
-
Ralls v. Caliendo
...358 U.S. 625, 79 S.Ct. 406, 3 L.Ed.2d 550; Mitchell v. Legarsky, 95 N.H. 214, 60 A.2d 136; Choate v. Carter, supra; Murdock v. Petersen, 74 Nev. 363, 332 P.2d 649; Martin v. Henson, 95 Ga.App. 715, 99 S.E.2d 251; Hennessey v. Hennessey, supra; Howard v. Howard, supra, and Potts v. Amis, 62 ......