Post v. Lunney
261 So.2d 146 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Florida law adopts the 'invitation test' from the Second Restatement of Torts, classifying a visitor as an invitee if they are either a 'business visitor' or a 'public invitee' who enters land held open to the public for the purpose for which it is held open.
Facts:
- Marjorie Merriweather Post agreed to have her home included in a tour of homes organized by the Palm Beach Garden Club.
- Bernice Lunney paid a five-dollar fee to the Garden Club to participate in the tour.
- Post received no portion of the fee paid by Lunney and was not reimbursed for any expenses incurred in preparing her home for the tour.
- While touring Post's home, Lunney walked across a valuable oriental rug that was covered by a piece of transparent vinyl for protection.
- Lunney tripped on the edge of the vinyl covering and fractured her hip.
Procedural Posture:
- Bernice Lunney and her husband sued Marjorie Merriweather Post for damages in a Florida trial court.
- The trial judge determined that Lunney was a licensee as a matter of law and instructed the jury accordingly.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Post.
- Lunney (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Lunney was an invitee, and remanded the case for a new trial.
- The District Court then certified a question of great public interest to the Supreme Court of Florida.
- Post (petitioner) sought review by certiorari in the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 person who is invited to enter land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open qualify as an invitee, even if the landowner does not receive a direct economic benefit?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ervin
Yes, a person invited onto land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open qualifies as an invitee. The court expressly recedes from the previously used 'economic benefit' or 'mutual benefit' test, which was too narrow and could lead to unjust results. Instead, the court adopts the 'invitation test' from the Second Restatement of Torts, § 332, which recognizes two types of invitees: 'business visitors' and 'public invitees.' Under this test, Mrs. Lunney was a public invitee because she was invited to enter Post's estate, which had been opened to the public for the garden club tour. Because she was an invitee, Post owed her a duty to keep the property reasonably safe, a higher standard of care than the one described in the trial judge's instruction for a licensee. Therefore, the case required a new trial with the correct jury instruction.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Roberts
No. The jury correctly found that the defendant, Post, should not be held liable for the plaintiff's injuries. The trial judge entered an order to this effect, and that verdict should be reinstated. The decision of the District Court of Appeal reversing the jury's verdict was an error.
Analysis:
This decision marks a significant expansion of premises liability in Florida by officially replacing the restrictive 'economic benefit' test with the broader 'invitation test.' By adopting the 'public invitee' category, the court shifted the focus from the owner's financial gain to the nature of the invitation extended to the visitor. This change makes it easier for individuals injured on property held open to the public (e.g., for charity events, open houses, or free recreational use) to be classified as invitees and thus be owed a higher duty of reasonable care from the landowner. The ruling aligns Florida with the majority of jurisdictions and the modern trend in tort law, increasing protection for public visitors on private property.
Unlock the full brief for Post v. Lunney