Davies v. McDowell National Bank
407 Pa. 209, 180 A.2d 21, 1962 Pa. LEXIS 568 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner is liable to a social guest, classified as a gratuitous licensee, for bodily harm caused by a latent dangerous condition only if the landowner has actual knowledge of the condition and fails to provide a warning.
Facts:
- J. Fred Thomas, the stepfather of Mary E. Davies, was 71 years old, lived alone, had recently suffered a stroke, and was advised by his doctor not to operate his automobile.
- Carl F. Davies and his wife, Mary E. Davies, had agreed to drive Thomas wherever he desired to go.
- On the afternoon of November 18, 1959, Carl and Mary Davies were visiting Thomas in his business office.
- While they were there, Thomas became ill, and his physician was called to the office.
- After treating Thomas, the physician left, and the Davies agreed to remain with Thomas until he had recovered sufficiently to be taken to their home.
- Later that night, Thomas and Mary Davies were found dead, and Carl Davies was found unconscious.
- An autopsy and examination of the premises determined the cause was carbon monoxide poisoning from a rusted-shut damper in the flue pipe of the gas furnace.
Procedural Posture:
- Carl F. Davies and the Estate of Mary E. Davies sued the Estate of J. Fred Thomas in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County.
- The actions for personal injury and wrongful death were consolidated for trial.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' evidence at trial, the defendant moved for a compulsory nonsuit.
- The trial court granted the compulsory nonsuit, preventing the case from going to the jury.
- The plaintiffs' subsequent motion to remove the nonsuit was denied by the trial court.
- The plaintiffs appealed the judgments to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a landowner liable to social guests for bodily harm caused by a latent dangerous condition on the premises when there is no evidence that the landowner had actual knowledge of the condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Eagen
No. A landowner is not liable to social guests for harm caused by a latent dangerous condition without proof that the landowner had actual knowledge of the danger. The plaintiffs, Carl and Mary Davies, were social guests, or gratuitous licensees, not business visitors, as their presence was based on a close family relationship and their offer to help was an incidental service that did not change their status. The duty owed to a gratuitous licensee is only to warn of known latent dangers. The plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence that Thomas had prior knowledge of the defective furnace damper. Therefore, without evidence of the landowner's knowledge of the specific latent defect, no duty was breached and no liability can be imposed.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Musmanno
Yes. A landowner should be held liable because the standard for negligence is not only what the owner knows, but what the owner reasonably should have known through a proper inspection. The Davies were not mere social guests; they were invitees because they were on the premises to perform a vital, life-saving service for Thomas at a doctor's direction, conferring a material benefit upon him. A landowner owes invitees a duty of reasonable care, which includes inspecting the premises for hidden dangers. Even if considered licensees, the defective furnace constituted a 'trap,' and the landowner had a duty to discover and abate such a peril. Furthermore, there was evidence that Thomas's doctor had specifically warned him to have his furnace checked for fumes, which established, at a minimum, a question of fact for the jury as to Thomas's negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the traditional common law distinction between the duties a landowner owes to invitees versus licensees. By classifying individuals performing significant, life-sustaining services as 'social guests,' the court narrowly interprets the 'business visitor' category, thereby limiting the landowner's duty to one of warning against known dangers only. The ruling rejects a 'constructive knowledge' (should have known) standard for licensees, placing a high evidentiary burden on injured social guests to prove the landowner's actual knowledge of a specific latent defect. This precedent makes recovery for licensees in similar situations more difficult.
Unlock the full brief for Davies v. McDowell National Bank