Cochran v. Burger King Corp.
1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 2059, 937 S.W.2d 358, 1996 WL 720317 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to a licensee is limited to the scope of the implied invitation, and when a person exceeds that scope by using the premises in an unforeseeable manner, their legal status changes to that of a trespasser, to whom the landowner owes no duty to protect from conditions on the land.
Facts:
- Around 2:00 a.m. on May 8, 1994, Chad Cochran, who was intoxicated, cut through a closed and unlit Burger King parking lot as a shortcut.
- After making one successful round trip, Cochran again cut through the lot but decided to check the Burger King dumpster for food.
- The dumpster was located in a dark, three-sided brick enclosure with walls nearly eight feet high.
- After entering the enclosure, Cochran, for a reason he could not later recall, attempted to climb one of the brick walls.
- As he grabbed the top of the wall to pull himself up, the wall collapsed on him, causing severe injuries, including the amputation of his thumb and leg.
- A month prior, a trash truck had damaged the wall, and Burger King's manager was aware that it was unstable and posed a potential danger.
- The manager and an employee had tested the wall's instability, and employees were subsequently warned not to touch it.
Procedural Posture:
- Chad Cochran filed a premises liability action against Burger King Corporation in a Missouri trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury found Burger King 80% at fault and awarded Cochran compensatory and punitive damages totaling $1,426,971.46.
- The trial court denied Burger King's motions for a directed verdict.
- Burger King Corporation (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, with Chad Cochran as the appellee.
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 landowner owe a duty to make a structure on its property reasonably safe for an individual who, after entering the property as a licensee, uses that structure in an unforesee-able manner that exceeds the scope of their implied permission?
Opinions:
Majority - Smart, J.
No. A landowner's duty of care to a visitor is coextensive with the scope of the invitation, and when a visitor deviates from that scope in an unforeseeable manner, their legal status is reduced to that of a trespasser, to whom the landowner generally owes no duty regarding conditions on the land. Missouri law retains the traditional premises liability categories of trespasser, licensee, and invitee. Cochran had the status of a licensee while using the parking lot as a shortcut, as this was an anticipated use. However, his legal status changed when he deviated from the scope of that license by entering the dark dumpster enclosure and attempting to climb the wall—an action entirely unrelated to the implied permission to cross the property. Burger King was not required to anticipate that a licensee would attempt to scale the eight-foot wall. At that moment, Cochran became a trespasser, and under Missouri law, a landowner owes no duty to an adult trespasser for a dangerous condition on the premises, absent narrow exceptions not applicable here. Because Burger King owed no duty to Cochran for his unforeseeable act of climbing the wall, it cannot be held liable for his injuries, regardless of its prior knowledge of the wall's defect.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms Missouri's commitment to the traditional, rigid common law categories of entrants in premises liability law, explicitly rejecting the modern trend of a single 'reasonable care under the circumstances' standard. The decision highlights the dynamic nature of a visitor's legal status, which can change based on their specific actions on the property. It establishes that a landowner's duty is tied not just to the visitor's presence, but to the foreseeability of their particular use of the premises. This precedent solidifies the principle that unforeseeable and unauthorized actions by a visitor can reduce their status to that of a trespasser, thereby absolving the landowner of liability for known dangers.
