Napier v. First Congregational Church of Portland
Decision Date | 13 July 1937 |
Parties | NAPIER v. FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF PORTLAND et al. |
Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
In banc.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; Robert Tucker, Judge.
Action by W. P. Napier against the First Congregational Church of Portland, a corporation, and others to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by falling down a stairway in the basement of a church building in an attempt on plaintiff's part to find and enter a lavatory. From a judgment of dismissal as to the individual defendants plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
T. Walter Gillard, of Portland (Wm. P. Lord, of Portland, on the brief), for appellant.
W. K Phillips and Willis Potter, both of Portland (Sheppard & Phillips, of Portland, on the brief), for respondents.
This action was brought against defendant, First Congregational Church of Portland, Or., and the trustees and pastor thereof as individuals. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by falling down a stairway leading to the basement of the church building.
After the opening statements to the jury were made, defendants objected to the introduction of any testimony and moved for a dismissal of the cause upon the ground that plaintiff's amended complaint failed to state a cause of action.
Plaintiff took an order of voluntary nonsuit as to defendant, First Congregational Church of Portland. The court entered an order of dismissal as to the individual defendants.
The question is whether or not the amended complaint states a cause of action against said individual defendants.
In said amended complaint, plaintiff alleges:
The question thus presented is whether or not the plaintiff's amended complaint alleges facts which disclose that it was negligence of a character entitled plaintiff to recover by reason of defendants failing to keep the door locked through which plaintiff passed in his quest for a lavatory, or failing to have said door marked informing the public that it was an entrance to a stairway, or not placing a false door in front of said stairway.
This leads to the question as to the status of plaintiff. We think that plaintiff was a mere licensee. Assuming that for the purpose of interviewing Dr. Walker, the plaintiff was an invitee, when he chose to seek a lavatory he embarked upon a quest for which he had not been invited.
"Where a person has entered upon the premises of another under invitation, express or implied, he is bound by that invitation, and becomes a bare licensee if he goes, for purposes of his own, to some part of the premises other than that to which he was invited, uses the premises for purposes or in ways other than those for which they were intended or to which his invitation extends, or remains on the premises beyond a reasonable time after his invitation has expired." 45 Corpus Juris, subject, Negligence, p. 794, § 198.
The law is well settled that a bare licensee, barring wantonness or some form of intentional wrong or active negligence by the owner or occupier, takes the premises as he finds them.
There is no allegation of an invitation, either express or implied, upon the part of appealing defendants to plaintiff that he make any other use of the premises, except that of calling upon Dr....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Landgraver v. Emanuel Lutheran Charity Bd.
...corporation, found it to be noncharitable, and judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed. The fourth Oregon case is Napier v. First Congregational Church, 157 Or. 110, 70 P.2d 43. The action against the corporation was dismissed on motion of the plaintiff, who proceeded only against the trust......
-
Cook v. Kinzua Pine Mills Co.
...in count one would not entitle her to recover. Akerson v. D. C. Bates & Sons, Inc., 180 Or. 224, 174 P.2d 953; Napier v. First Congregational Church, 157 Or. 110, 70 P.2d 43; Carr v. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co., 123 Or. 259, 261 P. 899, 60 A.L.R. 1434; Lange v. St. Johns Lumber Co., 115......
-
Ellguth v. Blackstone Hotel
...Market, Inc., 142 Neb. 570, 7 N.W.2d 74; McGenty v. John A. Stephenson & Co., 218 Minn. 311, 15 N.W.2d 874; Napier v. First Congregational Church of Portland, 157 Or. 110, 70 P.2d 43; Meeks v. Cowart, Tex.Civ.App., 84 S.W.2d 845; Smith v. Trimble, 111 Ky. 861, 64 S.W. The status of the plai......
-
Briggs v. John Yeon Co.
...it is necessary for the customer to take the child with her in order to visit the shop." This court, in Napier v. First Congregational Church, 157 Or. 110, 115, 70 P. (2d) 43, said: "An invitation to use the premises of another is inferred where there is a common interest or mutual advantag......