Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialduty of carecommon law

trialcommon law

Related Cases

Thompson v. Katzer, 86 Wash.App. 280, 936 P.2d 421

Facts

In early 1991, Buell Berg was house-sitting for Ronald and Ann Katzer while they were on vacation. The Katzers' driveway was covered with ice and snow, and despite knowing about the slippery conditions, Berg took no action to remove the ice or warn Thompson. Thompson drove to deliver Berg's car and slipped on the icy driveway, resulting in injury. He later sued for personal injuries, claiming that he was an invitee and that Berg had breached his duty of care.

In early 1991, Buell Berg was house-sitting for some friends, Ronald and Ann Katzer, who were away on vacation. The Katzers' driveway was covered with ice and snow. According to Thompson, the driveway was so slick that four people slipped or fell before he did. Although Berg knew of at least one fall, he took no action to remove the ice and snow.

Issue

Was Thompson an invitee or a licensee on the Katzers' property, and did Berg breach the duty of care owed to him?

Thompson argues he was a business visitor because his act of driving Berg's car to Ariel had economic value.

Rule

The court applied the common law classifications of invitee and licensee to determine the duty owed by the property owner. An invitee is someone invited for a purpose connected with business dealings, while a licensee enters with permission but for personal purposes.

Common law classifications continue to determine the duty owed by an owner or occupier of land in Washington.

Analysis

The court found that Thompson was a licensee because he entered the property primarily for a familial purpose, not for business dealings. Although Thompson argued that his act of delivering the car had economic value, the court concluded that this benefit was incidental to his social purpose. Furthermore, the court determined that Thompson should have been aware of the icy conditions, which negated any claim of breach of duty by Berg.

The trial court correctly ruled that Thompson was a licensee. Thompson and Berg did not bargain for Thompson to bring the car to Ariel, and Thompson did not do so as part of any 'business dealings' between the two.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision to dismiss the case, concluding that Thompson was a licensee and that Berg did not breach the standard of care owed to him.

We affirm.

Who won?

Buell Berg and the Katzers prevailed in the case because the court found that Thompson was a licensee and that he failed to demonstrate a breach of the standard of care.

Berg and the Katzers argued that Thompson was a licensee as a matter of law, and that Berg had not breached the standard of care owed to a licensee.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Reilly v. Anderson, 727 N.W.2d 102

National Cas. Co. v. Northern Trust Bank of Florida, N.A., 807 So.2d 86, 27 Fla. L. Weekly D4

Tool Research & Engineering Corp. v. Henigson, 46 Cal.App.3d 675, 120 Cal.Rptr. 291

Greenpeace, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., 97 A.3d 1053

Collins v. N-Ren Corp., 604 F.2d 659