Title: Edwards v. City of Birmingham

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

447 So. 2d 704 (1984)
Wilford EDWARDS
v.
CITY OF BIRMINGHAM.
82-617.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 2, 1984.
James P. Rea and M. Clay Alspaugh of Hogan, Smith & Alspaugh, Birmingham, for appellant.
Milford G. Bass, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Birmingham, for appellee.
ALMON, Justice.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant City of Birmingham. Plaintiff Wilford Edwards sued for injuries received while playing baseball on a baseball diamond in a public park in the City of Birmingham.
Edwards alleged in his complaint that he stepped in a hole between the left field foul line and a nearby chain link fence while attempting to catch a foul ball; that stepping into the hole caused him to fall against the fence, cutting himself on the exposed pointed edges on the top of the fence; and that the negligence of the City, in permitting the hole to remain in such a condition and in allowing the chain link fence to be installed and maintained with the sharp points dangerously unguarded, proximately caused his injuries.
The City filed a motion for summary judgment, saying:
Edwards responded that Glover did not apply because the defect or condition was created by or under the control of the City, unlike the factual setting in Glover. Edwards also filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion, but the trial court granted summary judgment for the City on February 22, 1983. Edwards timely filed notice of appeal to this Court.
We agree with the City and the trial court that the pleadings and affidavits "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(c), A.R.Civ.P.
Edwards was a mere licensee; indeed, he stated in his affidavit that he paid no admission fee to use the field. Being on the City's property with the City's consent but for no business purpose, he was a licensee. Hickey v. Charlton, 335 So. 2d 389 (Ala.1976); Tolbert v. Gulsby, 333 So. 2d 129 (Ala.1976). The duty a landowner owes to a licensee is not to willfully or wantonly injure him or to negligently injure him after discovering his peril. Bryant v. Morley, 406 So. 2d 394 (Ala.1981); Hickey v. Charlton, supra; Tolbert v. Gulsby, supra.
Under certain circumstances, a landowner may be required to warn a licensee of hidden dangers created by the landowner:
Wright v. Alabama Power Co., 355 So. 2d 322, 325 (Ala.1978) (citations omitted); Glover v. City of Mobile, 417 So. 2d 175 (Ala. 1982).
Edwards's complaint only sounds in negligence, and neither the complaint nor his affidavit asserts that the City did any positive act causing the hole to be in the condition which caused him to stumble. The most that can be gleaned from his complaint and affidavit is that he claims the City, by negligently maintaining the park, allowed the hole to remain. Any danger posed by the fence was open and obvious, so no duty to warn of a newly created hidden hazard arose regarding it, either.
Under the authorities cited above, the trial court was correct in granting summary judgment for the City. That judgment is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and FAULKNER, EMBRY and ADAMS, JJ., concur.