Campbell v. Weathers?

Supreme Court of Kansas · Torts

Tortspremises liabilityinvitee statuslandlord liabilitycontributory negligenceinviteelicenseetrespasser

Facts

The lessee operated a cigar and lunch business open to the public in Wichita, and a narrow hallway within the leased premises led from the front of the business to a toilet that had been used by plaintiff and, according to an employee, by "everybody" and the public. Plaintiff, a regular customer for years, entered the business on a Sunday morning and walked toward the toilet without seeing any sign or receiving any warning that a trap door in the hallway floor had been left open. The hallway was dark or dimly lit because the electric light was not on, and a pasteboard box partly obscured the open hole, causing plaintiff to step over the box and into the opening, breaking his arm. The trap door had been left open at the lessee's suggestion for ventilation before possible floor work, and the landlord's manager had merely agreed that leaving it open for ventilation was a good idea.

Issue

Was plaintiff, on this evidence, an invitee rather than a mere licensee or trespasser while using the hallway to reach the toilet, and was there sufficient evidence of the lessee's negligence to go to the jury despite arguments of contributory negligence? Also, was there sufficient evidence to impose liability on the landlord and building manager for the injury occurring within the leased premises?

Rule

A person is an invitee when expressly or impliedly invited onto premises in connection with the business carried on there, and a regular customer of a public lunch or restaurant business may remain an invitee while going to toilet facilities provided for guests, even without a specific invitation or an actual purchase on that particular occasion. A restaurant keeper must keep in a reasonably safe condition the portions of the establishment where guests may be expected to come and go, including the passage to a necessary toilet, and failure to light the passageway adequately or warn of an unguarded opening may constitute actionable negligence. On demurrer, the evidence and all favorable inferences must be taken for plaintiff, and contributory negligence or proximate cause is for the jury if reasonable minds might differ. A landlord is generally not liable for defects within leased premises under the tenant's possession and control where the premises were safe when leased and the landlord neither undertook the repairs nor controlled the intervening acts that produced the injury.

🔒

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 Topeka, Nora Benton regularly stops at Prairie Lantern Cafe whenever she is downtown. One afternoon she enters through the open front door, nods to the cashier, and walks toward the restroom at the back, which customers commonly use, but before she buys anything she slips into an uncovered floor opening in the dim passage leading there.

On these facts, what is Nora's strongest argument about her status when she entered the passageway?

Explanation. The majority rule treats a person as an invitee when expressly or impliedly invited onto premises in connection with the business carried on there. A regular customer of a public lunch or restaurant business may remain an invitee while going to toilet facilities provided for guests, even without a specific invitation or a purchase on that particular visit. The key point is the implied invitation arising from the public nature of the business and the patron's regular customer relationship, not a same-day purchase.