MacKey v. Allen
396 S.W.2d 55, 1965 Ky. LEXIS 95 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A property possessor who is aware of a dangerous condition that presents an unreasonable risk to visitors, and should foresee that visitors will not discover the risk, has a duty to warn them of the danger. An apparent invitation to enter, such as a sign over a door, is treated as an actual invitation, creating a duty of care even if the entry is mistaken.
Facts:
- George S. and Helen W. Allen owned a building housing two tenants: Voss Pharmacy, operated by Arthur J. Voss, and Central Medical Clinic, a partnership of Dr. Hodge and Dr. Cohen.
- A single large sign reading "Central Medical Clinic" was located over two identical, side-by-side doors. One door was the clinic's entrance, while the other opened directly into an unlighted stairway to a basement shared by both tenants.
- Approximately one month before the incident, another woman, Mrs. Showalter, had mistakenly opened the basement door and fallen down the stairs. Both Dr. Hodge and Voss were aware of this prior accident.
- On December 15, 1961, Voss unlocked the basement door to allow employees from Our Own Deliveries, Inc., to store merchandise.
- After completing the delivery, the employees pulled the door shut but did not lock it, and Voss forgot to check and ensure it was locked.
- Shortly after, Roberta B. Mackey, who was unfamiliar with the premises, was sent to the clinic on an errand for another person.
- Assuming both doors led into the clinic because of the single sign, Mackey opened the unlocked right-hand door, stepped inside in one continuous motion, and fell down the stairs, sustaining injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Roberta B. Mackey and her husband filed a lawsuit in a state trial court against Voss, the Allens (landlords), Drs. Hodge and Cohen (the clinic), and Our Own Deliveries, Inc., for personal injuries and loss of consortium.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Allens and the doctors.
- Following the plaintiffs' presentation of evidence at trial, the court granted a directed verdict in favor of the remaining defendants, Voss and the delivery company.
- The Mackeys (appellants) appealed the judgments to the reviewing appellate 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 tenant who knows a door on the premises misleadingly appears to be an entrance and leads to a dangerous condition have a duty to protect visitors, even if a third party's separate act of negligence created the immediate hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - Palmore, Judge
Yes. A tenant in possession of property has a duty to protect visitors from a dangerous condition that appears to be a safe entrance when the tenant knows of the misleading appearance and the associated risk. The court found that both Central Medical Clinic and Voss were liable. The clinic had a duty because its sign over both doors created an 'apparent invitation' to enter through either one. The clinic knew of the dangerous condition from a prior, similar accident and should have foreseen that Voss might negligently leave the door unlocked again, meaning Voss's negligence was not a superseding cause. Voss was also liable because he shared possession of the basement, knew his co-tenant's sign created a misleading invitation, and knew of the prior accident, giving him a shared responsibility to exercise ordinary care to protect visitors from a trap he was aware of. However, the landlords (the Allens) were not liable because they had relinquished exclusive control of the basement to the tenants, and the delivery company was not liable because it was unreasonable to expect its employees to appreciate the risk to third parties during their brief time on the premises.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that an 'apparent invitation,' such as misleading signage, can create a duty of care equivalent to an actual invitation under premises liability law. It significantly clarifies the concept of foreseeability in the context of superseding causes, holding that a prior negligent act by a third party makes a subsequent, similar act foreseeable, preventing it from breaking the chain of causation. The case places a strong affirmative duty on business tenants to remedy known, deceptive dangers on their premises, even when the immediate hazard is created by a co-tenant's negligence. This impacts how liability is apportioned in shared commercial spaces with common or ambiguous areas.
Unlock the full brief for MacKey v. Allen