Inkel v. Livingston
2005 ME 42, 869 A.2d 745, 2005 Me. LEXIS 42 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty of reasonable care to a social guest is limited to the scope of the invitation. A guest who ventures beyond the express or implied boundaries of this invitation loses their status as a guest and becomes a trespasser, to whom the landowner does not owe a duty of reasonable care.
Facts:
- Donald Livingston hired Solid Rock Builders to construct a new house on his property, located forty-two feet away from the cottage where he lived.
- Livingston invited his friend, Leonard Inkel, and his family to his cottage for Easter dinner.
- After dinner, as it was becoming dusk in cloudy and rainy weather, Inkel and his adult son went outside for a cigarette.
- Inkel and his son walked towards the shore, in the direction of the new house, which had no lights on.
- Curious about a room, Inkel and his son entered the partially enclosed structure without informing Livingston.
- There were no signs or barriers preventing entry to the construction site.
- After walking ten to twenty feet inside the structure, Inkel fell eight to ten feet through an uncovered chimney hole, suffering injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Leonard R. Inkel filed a negligence lawsuit against Donald Livingston and Solid Rock Builders in the Superior Court of York County, Maine, a trial court.
- Livingston and Solid Rock Builders each filed a motion for summary judgment against Inkel.
- The trial court granted the motions for summary judgment, finding that Inkel exceeded the scope of his invitation and was a trespasser when injured.
- Inkel, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine. Livingston and Solid Rock Builders are the appellees.
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's invitation to a social guest for dinner at a cottage on their property implicitly extend to a separate, unlit, and partially constructed house on the same property, thereby making the landowner liable for injuries the guest sustains after entering the construction site?
Opinions:
Majority - Levy, J.
No. The scope of a social invitation for dinner does not implicitly extend to a separate, unfinished construction site on the property. The landowner's duty of reasonable care is confined to the part of the premises to which the invitation extends. The undisputed facts show the invitation was for the limited purpose of having Easter dinner at the cottage and the immediately surrounding grounds. Inkel had no reason to believe his presence was desired in the dimly lit, partially constructed house for the purpose for which he had come. By entering the construction site, Inkel exceeded the scope of his invitation, became a trespasser, and therefore neither Livingston nor the builder owed him a duty of reasonable care.
Dissenting - Calkins, J.
Yes. A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the scope of the invitation implicitly extended to the new structure, which should be decided by a jury. The dissent argues that when viewed in the light most favorable to Inkel, a fact-finder could infer an implied permission. Factors supporting this inference include the proximity of the structure to the cottage, the lack of barriers or warnings, the fact that the house was a subject of conversation, and the friendship between the parties. The dissent contends it was reasonably foreseeable that a guest would be curious and enter the structure, meaning Inkel's status as an invitee should not have been terminated as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'scope of invitation' doctrine within premises liability, reinforcing that a guest's protected legal status is not boundless. It demonstrates that even after Maine's abolition of the distinction between invitees and licensees, the trespasser classification remains a potent defense for landowners. The case establishes that a guest's own actions, such as entering a clearly separate and hazardous area unrelated to the social purpose of the visit, can sever the landowner's duty of reasonable care. This precedent guides lower courts in determining the geographical and purposeful limits of social invitations, particularly on properties with multiple structures or distinct zones.
Unlock the full brief for Inkel v. Livingston