Vinyard v. Vinyard Funeral Home, Inc.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri
435 S.W.2d 392 (1968)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A landowner is liable for injuries to an invitee if a condition on the premises poses an unreasonable risk of harm, the owner knows or should know of the condition, and the invitee does not know and cannot reasonably be expected to discover the danger. A combination of factors, such as a sloped surface, a hidden change in texture, slickness when wet, and dim lighting, can collectively create such an unreasonably dangerous and undiscoverable condition.

Facts:

The defendant funeral home paved its parking lot with a rough asphalt surface approximately eighteen months before the plaintiff's fall.
Fourteen months before the incident, the defendant applied a clear liquid sealer to the upper level of the lot and halfway down the connecting ramps, creating a smoother surface than the unsealed portion.
The defendant's officers and employees knew this sealed surface was very slick when wet, had discussed 'roughing it up,' and had received numerous complaints about its slickness from other patrons.
On a drizzling, dimly lit night, the plaintiff, who was the daughter-in-law of the defendant's president, parked on the lower, unsealed level of the lot, a section she had used before.
As she walked up a ramp toward the funeral home, she stepped from the rough, unsealed surface onto the smooth, sealed surface for the first time.
Unable to perceive the change in texture due to the dim lighting, the plaintiff immediately slipped on the wet, sealed surface and fell, sustaining injuries.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff sued Defendant in a trial court for personal injuries from a slip and fall.
A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict for the Plaintiff and an award of $13,000 in damages.
The trial court entered judgment on the jury's verdict.
Defendant appealed the judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, making the Defendant the appellant and the Plaintiff the appellee.

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 create an unreasonably dangerous condition, for which it can be held liable, by maintaining a dimly lit ramp with an abrupt and hard-to-see transition from a rough surface to a smooth, sealed surface that the owner knows becomes extremely slick when wet?

Opinions:

Majority - Clemens, Commissioner

Yes, a landowner creates an unreasonably dangerous condition under these circumstances. The court found that the plaintiff's evidence demonstrated a combination of factors that constituted an unreasonable risk not reasonably discoverable by her. The court distinguished this case from those involving obvious dangers, aligning it instead with precedents where a hidden defect created liability. Here, the danger was not merely a wet ramp, but the combination of four interrelated factors: (1) the 14 percent grade of the slope, (2) the sealed surface that became slick when wet, (3) the abrupt and concealed change in texture from rough to smooth, and (4) the dim lighting that prevented the plaintiff from discovering this change. Because the defendant had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition from prior complaints and employee observations, while the plaintiff did not and could not have discovered it through ordinary care, the issue of liability was properly submitted to the jury.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that a landowner's duty to an invitee extends to dangers that are not 'open and obvious.' It clarifies that a condition's 'obviousness' is determined not by each component in isolation, but by the combined effect of all circumstances. The ruling establishes that a combination of otherwise minor factors (slope, texture, lighting) can create a latent, or hidden, defect for which the landowner can be held liable if they have knowledge of the risk. This precedent strengthens claims for plaintiffs in premises liability cases where the injury results from a concealed 'trap' rather than a single, easily observable hazard.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Vinyard v. Vinyard Funeral Home, Inc. (1968)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"