Title: REX ALLEN AND JEANNINE ALLEN v. SLIM PICKENS ENTERPRISES, A California Corporation, and MAGGIE LINDLEY PICKENS, A/K/A MARGARET ELIZABETH LINDLEY

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

REX ALLEN AND JEANNINE ALLEN v. SLIM PICKENS ENTERPRISES, A California Corporation, and MAGGIE LINDLEY PICKENS, A/K/A MARGARET ELIZABETH LINDLEY1989 WY 163777 P.2d 79Case Number: 88-314Decided: 07/28/1989Supreme Court of Wyoming
REX 
ALLEN AND JEANNINE ALLEN, APPELLANTS (PLAINTIFFS),

v.

SLIM PICKENS ENTERPRISES, 
A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, AND MAGGIE LINDLEY PICKENS, A/K/A MARGARET ELIZABETH 
LINDLEY, APPELLEES (DEFENDANTS).

Appeal from the District Court,SubletteCounty, Robert B. Ranck, 
J.

Stephen E. 
Weichman and William R. Fix of William R. Fix, P.C., Jackson, for appellants.

William T. 
Schwartz and William S. Bon of Schwartz, Bon, McCrary & Walker, Casper, for appellee Slim Pickens Enterprises, 
Inc.

Richard E. Day 
and Richard L. Williams of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., Casper, for appellee Margaret Elizabeth 
Lindley.

Before CARDINE, C.J., THOMAS, URBIGKIT and MACY, 
JJ., and PATRICK, District Judge.

URBIGKIT, 
Justice.

[¶1.]     Cowboy singer Rex Allen 
(Allen), then on his honeymoon, stopped at the Boulder Lake, Wyoming cabin of 
his long-time friend, Slim Pickens (Pickens). By association in prior years, 
Pickens had extended an open invitation to Allen to visit at any time and had 
apparently told Allen where the house key was secreted. Failing to find the key 
and falling on overgrown grass in the steps of the unoccupied cabin, Allen 
suffered injury which ultimately resulted in the loss of sight in one eye. 
Within this relationship and following the severe slip and fall injury, we are 
presented with a summary judgment denial of damage.

[¶2.]     We affirm in analysis 
of the presented question of negligence and scope of duty of the property owner. 
Intrinsically involved is Allen's contention of failure: 

[T]o maintain the 
stairway where the Appellant was injured in a reasonably safe condition, the 
Appellees failed to provide adequate maintenance of the stairway, the Appellees 
failed to warn of the unsafe condition existing upon the stairway, and that the 
Appellees were otherwise negligent in the management and maintenance of the 
stairway.[1]

[¶3.]     Pickens, a nationally 
known actor, owned a summer retreat cabin at BoulderLake 
in the mountains near Pinedale, Wyoming. Title to the property had been 
transferred to Slim Pickens Enterprises, a California corporation, which constitutes one 
of the two appellees in this case and the heirs of the deceased Pickens 
constitutes the additional appellees in present appeal. In general practice, the 
cabin was closed and winterized in the fall and reopened in the spring with the 
arrival of suitable weather for summer use when the utilities were turned on and 
yard grass surrounding the structure cut. Allen had visited the cabin in prior 
years and an open invitation to "stop by" with included instructions as to where 
a hidden key to the cabin might be found had been 
extended.

[¶4.]     In the year of the 
accident, 1983, Pickens was seriously ill and the cabin had not been reopened 
for use. As a result, weeds and grass had grown up around the walkways and 
stairs, as well as the yard area. According to the record as accurately outlined 
in appellee Margaret Elizabeth Lindley's brief:

Every fall, the Pickens 
cabin was winterized, which included disconnecting the electricity, and draining 
the water. When someone was going to use the cabin, including Slim Pickens and 
Mrs. Lindley, they would call in advance to have the cabin opened up and the 
utilities connected. This included having the grass mowed, the cabin cleaned, 
and linens brought out. The cabin was not habitable after it had been 
winterized. * * *

* * * No one in the 
Pickens family used the Pickens cabin during the year 1983, since Slim Pickens 
was very, very ill at that time. * * * Slim Pickens died in 1983. * * 
*

* * * Since no one in the 
Pickens family used the cabin in 1983, and no guests had called to request to 
use the cabin, the cabin remained winterized during the summer of 1983, and the 
native grass around the cabin had not been mowed. * * *

* * * According to Mr. 
Allen, Slim Pickens had told him many times that if Mr. Allen was going to be in 
the area, he was free to come and stay at the Pickens cabin. * * * Although Mrs. 
Lindley was not aware of this open invitation, she does not doubt Mr. Allen's 
word with respect to this invitation. * * *

* * * Mr. Allen had no 
specific discussion with either Slim Pickens or his wife, Mrs. Lindley, about 
staying at the Pickens cabin in July of 1983, and in fact Mr. Allen doubted that 
either Slim Pickens or his wife even knew that he was going to be in the area at 
that time. * * *

For the 
occurrence itself and on the date of the slip and fall accident, Mrs. Lindley 
summarizes:

In July of 1983, Mr. 
Allen and his wife were driving in a motorhome from a family gathering in 
northern Arizona to Calgary, Canada. * * * The night before the 
accident, Mr. Allen and his wife stayed in Denver with his son. Mr. Allen decided at that 
time that the Pickens cabin would be a nice place to stay on his way north. * * 
*

* * * Prior to driving to 
Boulder Lake to the Pickens cabin, Mr. Allen stopped in Pinedale to see if Mike 
Nystrom's office was open. Mr. Nystrom was a friend of Slim Pickens, and Mr. 
Pickens had originally bought the property at BoulderLake from Mr. Nystrom. Mr. Allen was 
simply going to let Mr. Nystrom know that he was going to be spending the night 
at the Pickens cabin. Mr. Nystrom was not in his office at that time. * * * Mr. 
and Mrs. Allen did not stop anywhere else in Pinedale, since they wanted to get 
to the Pickens cabin before dark. * * *

* * * When Mr. Allen 
arrived at the Pickens cabin, there were no vehicles around, and there were no 
lights on in the Pickens cabin. Mr. Allen walked to the front door and knocked 
to see if anyone was there. When no one answered, Mr. Allen got back into his 
motorhome and drove down the road to the main lodge to see if he could get a key 
to the cabin. The people who ran the main lodge knew Mr. Allen, but the lodge 
was also closed down. * * *

* * * Mr. Allen then 
drove the motorhome back to the Pickens cabin and parked the vehicle in the 
driveway near the front of the structure. At the time he arrived back at the 
Pickens cabin, it was still light. According to Mr. Allen, Slim Pickens had told 
him that he had stashed a key to the cabin under the windowsill of one of the 
windows on the back of the cabin. * * *

* * * There was a deck 
across the back of the cabin, which could be accessed by one step up from the 
ground level to the deck, either coming in from the side of the house, or the 
back of the house. * * *

* * * When Mr. Allen 
arrived at the back of the Pickens cabin, he could see that tall grass had grown 
up in the cracks of the steps, and in front of the steps. Mr. Allen kicked the 
grass away to be sure that he was on the step, and then stepped up on to the 
back deck. The grass was a native grass. Although he could barely see the step, 
he knew it was there, and he was trying to be careful because of the grass. * * 
*

* * * Mr. Allen then 
walked over to the kitchen window, and ran his hand down under the sill, but 
found no key. He then did the same thing with the other window on the back of 
the house, and again found no key. He then decided that since there was nothing 
there, there was no sense in looking any further, and he started back to the 
motorhome. * * *

* * * Although Mr. Allen 
had entered onto the deck by using the one step at the side of the deck, he 
began to exit from the deck down the one step off the back of the deck. * * * It 
is Mr. Allen's belief that he put his left foot down onto the step, and slipped. 
* * *

* * * The step coming off 
the back of the deck looked the same as the step coming up the side of the deck, 
which was [sic] grass growing up in front of the step and between the boards on 
the step. Again, he knew there was a step there, and could in fact see the step. 
* * *

* * * Because of the 
grass on the step, Mr. Allen was trying to be more careful than normal, although 
probably not as careful as when he was coming up onto the deck, because he had 
successfully negotiated that step. * * * Mr. Allen believes that he slipped on 
the grass on the step, which caused him to fall. * * *

* * * As a result of 
slipping on the step, Mr. Allen hit either the side of his head or his eye, 
which caused the injury which is the subject matter of this litigation. * * 
*

[¶5.]     In 1987, just before 
the tort statute of limitations expired, suit was instituted against the prior 
property owner, Slim Pickens Enterprises, and heirs of Pickens, primarily 
Margaret Elizabeth Lindley, the widow. She denied knowledge of the accident 
until three years after it had occurred. Following institution of suit, 
discovery was diligently pursued and, after completion, summary judgment was 
granted against Allen in trial court finding that "Rex [Allen] was a social 
guest of defendants and was thus a `licensee.' The defendants breached no duty 
to the plaintiffs."

[¶6.]     We 
agree.

[¶7.]     The record establishes 
that Allen neither contacted Pickens nor the Pickens family in 1983, nor did 
anyone arrange to have the facility habitable for that summer season. The 
natural condition of an unoccupied summer cabin does not establish a duty for 
which violation in these factual circumstances can be extrapolated, even though 
Allen bases an apparent claim for recovery in failure of Pickens to cut the 
grass and otherwise prepare for the 1983 summer occupancy just in case somebody 
might "stop by."

[¶8.]     Another suggestion as a 
premise for fault is made of improper design which permitted the grass to grow 
up within the steps and walkways. The natural condition and its vacant status 
were unquestioned. We also fail to find persuasion of fault in this contention. 
Allen could see the vacant condition and the growing foliage which is indigenous 
to an unoccupied summer cabin. Nothing in these circumstances lead us to a 
viable contention of some kind of negligence. We are unpersuaded that with 
Pickens ill and unavailable, a duty existed from which negligence can be 
discerned to cut the grass at an unoccupied cabin for an unexpected visitor. In 
itself, naturally growing grass is not unnaturally dangerous if walkway usage is 
neither invited nor expected. Radosevich v. Board of CountyCommissioners of SweetwaterCounty, 776 P.2d 747 (Wyo. 1989). Cf. Reno Livestock Corp. v. Sun 
Oil Co. (Delaware), 638 P.2d 147 (Wyo. 1981); Timmons v. Reed, 569 P.2d 112 (Wyo. 1977); and Knudson v. Hilzer, 551 P.2d 680 
(Wyo. 1976). 
An owner of property has no duty to invitees to correct a known and obvious 
danger, if there was one here, created by naturally growing grass and cabin 
foliage. Jones v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 718 P.2d 890 (Wyo. 1986). There is no 
actionable negligence in the absence of a duty neglected or violated. Jackson v. Land, 391 P.2d 904 (Okla. 1964). The key to 
the creation of a duty to the invitees on the premises is foreseeability. Becker 
v. Diamond Parking, Inc., 768 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. App. 1989).

[¶9.]     The status of this 
visitor, except to discern that he was not a trespasser, is unimportant under 
these circumstances. Within the particularized facts of a general invitation in 
a prior year and present visit to the unoccupied summer cabin without advance 
notice, the designation of the relationship is unnecessary in assessment that no 
duty of care was violated. Whether to be differentiated to be a bare licensee in 
legal theory or a social guest, the visit of Allen was unexpected, unplanned and 
unprepared. We do not find either a genuine issue of material fact with 
conflicting evidence or interpretations from which reasonable minds might 
differ. Radosevich, 776 P.2d 747; Baldwin v. Dube, 751 P.2d 388, 390 (Wyo. 
1988).

[¶10.]  Consequently, we 
affirm.

FOOTNOTES

1 There was another issue 
presented in behalf of the listed defendant, Slim Pickens Enterprises. That 
corporation had been dissolved effective March 18, 1986 and apparently 
liquidated pursuant to California law. At the time the litigation was 
commenced, that corporate entity was not in existence. We need not pursue the 
issue to consider a proper party for litigation after a corporation is dissolved 
and assets liquidated in view of the disposition of this matter otherwise made. 
A defense on the issue was presented pursuant to W.R.C.P. 9(a), but no ruling 
was made by the trial court with the general grant of summary judgment on 
liability.