Lynch v. Rosenthal

Missouri Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsNegligenceDuty to warnInvitee statusContributory negligenceIn loco parentisfarm accidentcorn picker

Facts

Plaintiff, a twenty-two-year-old man with the mental capacity of about a nine-and-one-half to ten-and-one-half-year-old child, lived in defendant's home and helped with farm work but was not defendant's employee in a legal sense. Defendant directed plaintiff to walk behind the corn picker and throw into the wagon any corn that fell to the ground, but gave no warning not to get close to the picker or about the danger of its exposed moving parts, even though defendant knew plaintiff had to be repeatedly instructed and soon forgot directions. Plaintiff stumbled near the rear of the picker, caught at a metal shield near the exposed husking rollers, and his right arm was drawn into the machine. Defendant admitted that if plaintiff had been walking behind the picker and in front of the wagon, he would not have permitted it because that was dangerous.

Issue

Whether defendant owed plaintiff a duty of ordinary care, including a duty to warn him about walking in dangerous proximity to the picker, and whether plaintiff was barred from recovery as a matter of law by contributory negligence or by defendant's claimed in loco parentis status. The court also considered whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing amendment of the petition to conform to the proof and denying a continuance.

Rule

A landowner must exercise ordinary care for the safety of a person who is on the premises at the landowner's instance and direction for the landowner's benefit; such a person is an invitee, not a bare licensee. Where the defendant knows the plaintiff is mentally subnormal, ordinary care must be measured in light of that particular plaintiff's condition, and contributory negligence is for the jury if reasonable minds could differ as to the plaintiff's realization and appreciation of the danger. Allowing amendment of pleadings and denying a continuance are matters within the trial court's sound discretion absent abuse.

🔒

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 rural Iowa, Nolan Becker asked Trevor Mills, a 19-year-old neighbor with known substantial cognitive limitations, to walk beside an operating hay conveyor and toss fallen bales back onto a trailer so Nolan could finish faster. Trevor was not hired as an employee, but he was there solely because Nolan directed him to help with the harvest.

If Trevor is injured by the conveyor, what is the strongest argument about Nolan's duty?

Explanation. The majority treated a person on the premises at the defendant's instance and direction and for the defendant's benefit as an invitee, not a bare licensee, even though he was not an employee. Ordinary care therefore applies. Payment, formal employment, or family status is not what controls this classification. (Derived from Lynch v. Rosenthal (n.d.).)