Turpin v. Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Church, 7421SC89
| Decision Date | 06 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 7421SC89,7421SC89 |
| Citation | 202 S.E.2d 351,20 N.C.App. 580 |
| Parties | Larry TURPIN v. OUR LADY OF MERCY CATHOLIC CHURCH. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Wilson & Morrow by John F. Morrow, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellant.
Hudson, Petree, Stockton, Stockton & Robinson by R. M. Stockton, Jr. and James H. Kelly, Jr., Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellee.
Under facts shown as to which there was no genuine issue, plaintiff was a licensee and not an invitee on defendant's premises. 'To constitute one an invitee of the other there must be some mutuality of interest.' Pafford v. Construction Co., 217 N.C. 730, 9 S.E.2d 408. Here there was none. That one member of a team in the league in which plaintiff played was also a member of defendant church who on occasion gave of his time assisting in coaching a church school team, merely explains how permission for use of the basketball court was obtained. It falls short of furnishing any basis for finding mutual benefit to plaintiff and defendant from plaintiff's presence on defendant's premises. Although invitation does not in itself establish the status of invitee, as witness the cases holding a social guest is a mere licensee, it is essential to it. 'An invitation differs from were permission in this: an invitation is conduct which justifies others in believing that the possessor desires them to enter the land; permission is conduct justifying others in believing that the possessor is willing that they shall enter if they desire to do so.' Restatement (Second), Torts, § 332, Comment b. Here, all facts show that plaintiff was on defendant's premises by defendant's permission but not by its invitation.
In Pafford v. Construction Co., supra, Barnhill, J. (later C.J.), speaking for the Court, said:
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Freeland
...another's premises at his own risk and enjoys the license subject to its concomitant perils. See Turpin v. Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Church, 20 N.C.App. 580, 583, 202 S.E.2d 351, 353 (1974). Finally, with respect to trespassers, a landowner need only refrain from the willful or wanton infl......
-
Cole v. Fairchild
...confer the status of a licensee. Id. at 177; see also 62 Am.Jur.2d Premise Liability § 95 (1990). In Turpin v. Our Lady of Mercy Catholic Church, 20 N.C.App. 580, 202 S.E.2d 351 (1974), a North Carolina appellate court distinguished these two concepts in a civil injury case brought by a bas......
-
Howard County Bd. of Educ. v. Cheyne
...they were licensees. Slovin, 200 A.2d at 566-67; Britt, 638 P.2d at 919-20; Smith, 464 P.2d at 576-77; Gruhalla, 391 S.W.2d at 592; Turpin, 202 S.E.2d at 352; Light, 502 N.E.2d at Appellant argues as a matter of public policy that upholding the trial court's determination of invitee status ......
-
McIntosh v. Carefree Carolina Communities, Inc., 8929SC210
...benefit between plaintiff and defendant. See Martin v. City of Asheville, 87 N.C.App. 272, 360 S.E.2d 467 (1987) and Turpin v. Church, 20 N.C.App. 580, 202 S.E.2d 351 (1974). Plaintiff argues that defendant indirectly invited him as a member of the general public and thus indirectly benefit......