Paquin v. McGinnis, 294

• Decision Date: 04 May 1967
• Docket Number: No. 294,294
• Citation: 246 Md. 569,229 A.2d 86
• Parties: Gabrielle C. PAQUIN et vir v. Lawrence McGINNIS et ux.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 569

246 Md. 569

229 A.2d 86

Gabrielle C. PAQUIN et vir v. Lawrence McGINNIS et ux.

No. 294.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

May 4, 1967.

Samuel Intrater, Washington, D. C. (Albert Brick, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellants.

Lansdale G. Sasscer, Jr., Upper Marlboro (Sasscer, Clagett, Powers & Channing, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellees.

Before HORNEY, MARBURY, BARNES, McWILLIAMS and FINAN, JJ.

MARBURY, Judge.

The question of what duty is owed by a host to a social guest in his home was raised in Sugar v. Traub, 233 Md. 320, 196 A.2d 869, and Silberg v. Klawans, 230 Md. 30, 185 A.2d 389, but these cases were decided on other grounds. The question has never been answered by this Court, and it is before us once again.

Appellants, William E. Paquin and Gabrielle C. Paquin, his wife, were houseguests of appellees, Lawrence McGinnis and his wife, Mary D. McGinnis. Appellants had come from Rhode Island, the state of their residence, to visit their daughter who was a nun at a local convent. Prior to visiting their daughter, they contacted appellees, who had extended an invitation to appellants to stay at their home when appellants visited in the area. Appellants asked whether they might spend a weekend at appellees' home. On Friday, May 10, 1963, they were met at an airport by appellees and were driven to appellees' home in Adelphi, Maryland. The appellants occupied the bedroom in which they had stayed on previous visits. The room was furnished with a double bed and the other usual furnishings. There was a small 'scatter' rug on each side of the bed, and the floor was of hardwood which was polished and shiny. The house was well kept.

On the evening of the 11th of May, the second night of the visit, while Mrs. Paquin was walking around the bed to turn down the blankets, she stepped on the scatter rug on the right side of the bed; the rug slipped; she fell and was injured. Mr. Paquin testified that on a prior visit when he was wearing leather heeled loafers he 'slipped a little bit' on the rug on the left side of the bed. He pushed the rug under the bed and did not mention the incident to anyone. On his next visit he did the same thing and again pushed the rug under the bed and did not say anything about it.

Appellants brought suit in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County against appellees for damages sustained as the result of injuries Mrs. Paquin received because of the alleged negligence of appellees. At the close of the plaintiffs' case, Judge Parker directed a verdict in favor of appellees; and from the judgment on the verdict, appellants have appealed.

A social guest who enters a premises at the express or implied invitation of the host is not an invitee in a legal sense even though the enters the premises upon the basis of the invitation. A social guest enters the premises of his host for his own benefit and convenience, and the hospitality the guest receives is bestowed gratuitously. The use of the premises is extended to him merely as a personal favor to him. As a sign of hospitality the host often treats the guest as 'one of the family' to whom is offered the first serving or the most comfortable chair. The legal duty owed to a social guest by a host is to take the same care of the guest that the host takes of himself and other members of his family.

The majority of jurisdictions hold that the guest is expected to take the premises as the host uses them, and he may not expect that they will be prepared for his reception or that precautions will be taken for his safety in any manner in which the host did not prepare or take precautions for his own safety or the safety of the members of his family. 38 Am.Jur., Negligence, Section 117, page 778; 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 63(136), page 920; Restatement (Second), Torts, Section 330, comment h 3. See cases collected in 25 A.L.R.2d 598.

The Restatement (Second), Torts, Section 342, imposes liability upon a host for physical harm caused to guests by a condition on the premises if, but only if, (1) the host knows or has reason to know of the condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such discover or realize the danger, and (2) the discover or relize the danger, and (2) the host fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the guests of the condition and the risk involved, and (3) the guests do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved.

The host has no duty to warn of dangers or defects of which he had no knowledge or means of knowledge, nor does he have a duty to give a warning of a condition which should be obvious to the guest. Restatement (Second), Torts, supra, comments a, b, c, and d.

The view of the majority has been criticized by appellant and by various writers as being illogical, and they have urged that the guest, invited and even urged to come, rightfully expects more than mere inactivity for his safety since he does not have the intimate knowledge of the premises that a member of the family has. See Prosser, Torts, (3d ed.), Section...