Barmore v. Elmore

Appellate Court of Illinois · Torts

TortsPremises liabilityInvitee and licenseeDuty to warnThird-party criminal actslicenseesocial guestinvitee

Facts

Plaintiff visited defendants' home to discuss Masonic Lodge business with Thomas Elmore, Sr. During the visit, defendants' adult son, Thomas Elmore, Jr., entered with a steak knife, accused plaintiff of talking about him, and after briefly being restrained by his father, followed plaintiff outside and stabbed him several times. Plaintiff sued the parents on a negligence theory, alleging they failed to warn and protect him from their son. The evidence showed the parents knew their son had mental problems, had been hospitalized, and had been involved in violent incidents about ten years earlier, but there was no evidence of recent threats or violence during the months before the attack.

Issue

Did the defendants, as homeowners, owe plaintiff a duty to warn or protect him from their adult son's attack based on plaintiff's status on the premises and defendants' knowledge of the son's mental history and past violent conduct? More specifically, was there sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find that defendants knew or had reason to know their son might commit this criminal act against plaintiff?

Rule

A person is an invitee if he enters by express or implied invitation, his entry is connected with the owner's business or an activity the owner conducts or permits on the land, and there is a mutuality of benefit or a benefit to the owner. A social guest is a licensee, and the landowner's duty to a licensee is to warn of hidden dangers unknown to the guest but known to the owner and to refrain from willful or wanton injury. A directed verdict is proper when, viewing all the evidence most favorably to the opponent, the evidence so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict could stand.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Peoria, Illinois, Darren Cole went to Victor Mena’s house after Victor asked him to stop by and talk about plans for their volunteer neighborhood association. While there, Darren was injured by a dangerous condition on the property and sues Victor, arguing he was an invitee because the meeting involved organizational business.

Under the majority’s reasoning, how should Darren most likely be classified?

Explanation. The majority held that invitee status requires invitation, connection with the owner’s business or an activity conducted on the land, and mutuality of benefit or a benefit to the owner. A person visiting a homeowner to discuss fraternal or similar organizational matters at the home is best treated as a social guest-licensee when the primary benefit runs to the organization rather than the homeowner personally. That is the closest fit here. (Derived from Barmore v. Elmore (n.d.).)