Knorpp v. Hale
981 S.W.2d 469 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A social guest on a property is legally classified as a licensee, and this status does not change to that of an invitee even if the guest performs a task for the landowner's benefit, unless that benefit is related to a business purpose rather than a shared social objective.
Facts:
- Todd Erwin was dating the Hales' daughter, Autumn, and frequently spent time at their home.
- The Hales were planning to host a New Year's Eve bonfire in a pasture on their property, centered around a dead pine tree.
- They decided the dead pine tree needed to be cut down in preparation for the bonfire.
- On December 6, 1994, Erwin went to the Hales' property and volunteered to cut down the tree.
- Erwin used the Hales' chainsaw to begin cutting the tree.
- After approximately forty-five minutes, the tree fell in an unexpected direction, landing on Erwin and causing his death.
- Erwin was not being paid for his work, and there was no business relationship between him and the Hales.
- Evidence suggested Erwin had prior experience cutting trees with his stepfather.
Procedural Posture:
- Bonita Knorpp, the mother of the decedent Todd Erwin, filed a premises liability lawsuit against the Hales in a Texas trial court.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- At the conclusion of the presentation of Knorpp's evidence, the Hales moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the motion, ruling as a matter of law that Erwin was a licensee and that Knorpp had presented no evidence that the Hales were negligent under the applicable legal standard for a licensee.
- Knorpp, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals, with the Hales as 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 social guest who voluntarily performs a task for the landowner's benefit, such as cutting down a tree for a planned party, become an invitee under the 'mutual benefit' test, rather than remaining a licensee?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Grant
No. A social guest remains a licensee unless their presence is for a purpose connected with the business dealings of the landowner; a shared social benefit, like preparing for a party, does not constitute the 'mutual benefit' required to elevate a social guest to the status of an invitee. The court reasoned that in Texas, a 'social guest' is legally classified as a licensee, not an invitee, regardless of being explicitly invited. The 'mutual benefit' test, historically used to determine invitee status, requires a business or pecuniary advantage for the landowner, not merely a shared intangible benefit like preparing for a social event. Since Erwin was a social guest, was not being paid, and had no business dealings with the Hales, his status was that of a licensee. Therefore, the landowners only owed him a duty not to injure him by willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct and to warn of known dangers, a standard which was not breached because the danger was created by Erwin's own actions in cutting the tree.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict distinction in Texas premises liability law between social guests and business visitors. It clarifies that the 'mutual benefit' required to elevate a visitor to invitee status must have a commercial or business character, not merely a social one. The decision solidifies the legal principle that individuals performing gratuitous services for friends or family remain licensees, limiting the landowner's duty of care to warning of known dangers. This precedent makes it more difficult for injured social guests to recover damages, as they cannot hold landowners liable for dangers the owner 'should have known' about through reasonable inspection, a duty owed only to invitees.
Unlock the full brief for Knorpp v. Hale