Campbell v. Weathers
111 P.2d 72, 153 Kan. 316, 1941 Kan. LEXIS 132 (1941)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A business proprietor owes a duty of reasonable care to keep the premises safe for an invitee, and a person's status as an invitee is not lost simply because they have not made a purchase on the particular occasion of their injury, especially if they are a regular customer.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was a regular customer for a number of years at a cigar and lunch business operated by the defendant lessee.
- The business provided a toilet for public use, which was accessible via a narrow hallway.
- On the day before the incident, a trap door in the hallway floor was opened at the lessee's suggestion to provide ventilation.
- On the morning of June 4, 1939, the plaintiff entered the business and, after some time, proceeded down the dimly lit hallway to use the toilet.
- An electric light in the hallway was not turned on at the time of the incident.
- A pasteboard box on the floor obscured the plaintiff's view of the open trap door.
- The plaintiff stepped over the box, fell into the open hole, and sustained injuries.
- An employee had previously warned the lessee that the open hole was dangerous and that someone could be injured.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed an action in a trial court against the lessee, the building owner, and the building manager to recover damages for personal injury.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case at trial, all three defendants filed demurrers to the evidence, arguing it was legally insufficient to support a claim.
- The trial court sustained the demurrers for all defendants, resulting in a dismissal of the plaintiff's case.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the trial court's rulings to the Kansas Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a business patron who enters a public establishment they regularly frequent, but has not yet made a purchase, have the status of an invitee to whom the business owner owes a duty of care to maintain a reasonably safe premises, including hallways and restrooms?
Opinions:
Majority - Wedell, J.
Yes. A regular business patron is an invitee, even without making a purchase on a specific visit, and the business owner owes that person a duty of care to keep the premises reasonably safe. The lessee in this case breached that duty. The court reasoned that the public nature of a business and the long-standing relationship with a customer create an implied invitation that does not depend on a transaction occurring during every visit. Businesses invite the public not just for immediate sales but to browse and cultivate future patronage. Furthermore, Kansas statutes required restaurant operators like the lessee to provide safe and accessible restrooms for guests. The lessee's duty extended to the hallway leading to the toilet. Leaving an unguarded, unlit trapdoor open in this passageway, especially after being warned of the danger, constituted a breach of the duty owed to the plaintiff as an invitee. The court also held that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law because he was entitled to assume the familiar passageway was safe and was not required to anticipate such a hidden danger. Conversely, the court found the building's owner (landlord) was not liable, as their mere consent to opening the trapdoor did not create responsibility for the lessee's subsequent negligence in failing to light the area or provide a warning.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of the 'invitee' status in premises liability law by decoupling it from the requirement of an immediate commercial transaction. It establishes that a business's duty of care extends to regular patrons present on the premises for purposes related to the business, even if they are only browsing. This precedent broadens the protection for customers and increases the burden on business owners to maintain safety throughout all accessible areas of their establishment. Future cases will likely rely on this reasoning to prevent businesses from disclaiming liability by narrowly defining a 'customer' as someone who has just made or is about to make a purchase.
Unlock the full brief for Campbell v. Weathers