Wolvert v. Gustafson
| Decision Date | 04 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 39835,39835 |
| Citation | 275 Minn. 239,146 N.W.2d 172 |
| Parties | Bessie WOLVERT et al., Appellants, v. Hjalmer GUSTAFSON et al., Defendants, Wayne Dunemann, Respondent. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A shopkeeper is not an insurer of the safety of business invitees, but owes those expressly or impliedly invited upon his premises the duty to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition. The standard of care remains the same whether the business is conducted indoors or outdoors.
2. Where defendant and his employees have not caused a dangerous condition, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the operator of premises had actual knowledge of the defect which caused injury or that it had existed for a sufficient period of time to charge the operator with constructive notice of its presence.
Nolan, Alderman & Holden and Richard H. Breen, Brainerd, for appellants.
O'Connor, Green, Thomas & Walters, Minneapolis, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order denying plaintiffs' motion for new trial.
This action was originally commenced against Hjalmer Gustafson, who was the record owner of the Deep Rock Gasoline Station in Brainerd, Minnesota; Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc., the record lessee thereof; and Wayne Dunemann, operator of the gasoline station, as sublessee. Dunemann will be referred to hereafter as defendant.
Plaintiffs, Bessie Wolvert and her husband, own and operate a dairy farm near Brainerd. On June 6, 1963, Mrs. Wolvert went to defendant's filling station for the purpose of having a tire mounted on her car. She drove into the station, parked her car in the driveway of the garage, and entered the station through the garage door, which was open. After arranging for the tire, she left the station through a door which exits from the office part of the station. Immediately adjacent to the office there is a platform or sidewalk which leads to the main driveway of the station. To reach the driveway it is necessary to step down off this platform or apron. Mrs. Wolvert testified that as she proceeded to step down onto the driveway with her right foot she encountered a hard, round, foreign object, which rolled under her foot and caused her to fall and sustain the injuries for which she now seeks recovery. She did not see any foreign object nor did anyone else. Defendant's employee testified that he customarily swept the premises in the evening and frequently during the daytime when it was necessary. He had swept the garage and the adjacent sidewalk a few minutes before Mrs. Wolvert arrived and he had made an observation of the driveway and saw no foreign objects on it necessitating any sweeping.
At the conclusion of the evidence the court ordered dismissal of the action with prejudice as to all defendants on the grounds that there was no proof of negligence. Plaintiffs now concede that they have no cause of action against defendants Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc., or Hjalmer Gustafson, so the appeal concerns only the liability of Wayne Dunemann
1. The rules pertaining to the liability of a shopkeeper are well established in this state. A shopkeeper is not an insurer of the safety of business invitees, but he owes those expressly or impliedly invited upon his premises the duty to keep and maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition. Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347, 178 N.W. 586. The standard of care remains the same whether the business is conducted indoors or outdoors. Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238, 45 N.W.2d 395; Behrendt v. Ahlstrand, 264 Minn. 10, 118 N.W.2d 27.
2. Where defendant and his employees have not caused the dangerous condition, the burden is on plaintiff to establish that the operator of the premises had actual knowledge of the defect causing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gradjelick v. Hance
...knowledge that smoke detectors in common areas of the apartment building were improperly installed. See Wolvert v. Gustafson, 275 Minn. 239, 241-42, 146 N.W.2d 172, 173-74 (Minn.1966) (explaining a landowner has constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition resulting from the direct actio......
-
Brown v. Casey's Retail Co.
...had existed for a sufficient period of time to charge the operator with constructive notice of its presence." Wolvert v. Gustafson, 275 Minn. 239, 241, 146 N.W.2d 172, 173 (1966). In this case, the district court expressed two reasons for finding that Casey's was negligent. First, the distr......
-
Berry v. Haertel, 41186
...of its safe condition, must use reasonable care to construct and maintain his premises in a reasonably safe condition. Wolvert v. Gustafson, 275 Minn. 239, 146 N.W.2d 172; Norman v. Tradehome Shoe Stores, Inc., 270 Minn. 101, 132 N.W.2d 745; Mayzlik v. Lansing Elev. Co., 241 Minn. 468, 63 N......
-
Rinn v. MINNESOTA STATE AGR. SOC.
...a duty to keep and maintain their premises in a reasonably safe condition, they are not insurers of safety. Wolvert v. Gustafson, 275 Minn. 239, 241, 146 N.W.2d 172, 173 (1966). Unless the dangerous condition actually resulted from the direct actions of a landowner or his or her employees, ......