Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01790/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01790-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES F. NORTH, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

Unit.eel Stat.es Court of Appeals 

T~nth Cir('uit 

JAN 251988 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 86-1790 

v. 

CARGILL, INCORPORATED, a foreign 

corporation 

Defendant-Appellee. 

(D.C. No. CIV-83-2795-BT) 

(W.D. Okla.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and MOORE, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs a nd appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.8. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

James North brought this diversity action against Cargill, 

Inc., to recover for injuries North sustained when he fell from a 

man-lift on a grain elevator owned by Cargill. North and two 

friends, one of whom was a Cargill employee with a key to the 

elevator, went to the top of the elevator in the middle of the 

night to view the city lights. No rth, who was intoxicated, became 

ill and frightened and fell off the man-lift when he attempted to 

descend by himself. North asserted that Cargill knew the elevator 

Appellate Case: 86-1790 Document: 010110025133 Date Filed: 01/25/1988 Page: 1 
-

was used by employees after hours for social and drinking purposes 

and was negligent in failing to warn of the danger of the manlift, and in failing t o stop such accivities. The district court 

granted Cargill's motion under Fed . R. Civ. P.12(b)(6) to dismiss 

for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 

North appeals and we affirm. 

A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be 

granted only when it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can 

prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 

355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Swanson v. Bixler, 750 F.2d 810, 813 

(10th Cir. 1984). In assessing the adequacy of the plaintiff's 

pleadings, the court must take the well-pleaded facts as true, 

draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and 

construe his pleadings liberally. Swanson, 750 F.2d at 813. 

To assert a claim for actionable negligence under Oklahoma 

law, a plaintiff must allege facts which would establish 1) a duty 

owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; 2) breach of that duty; 

and 3) harm to the plaintiff resulting from the breach. See 

Nicholson v. Tacker, 512 P.2d 156, 158 (Okla. 1973). In Oklahoma, 

a "[l]and possessor's liability in negligence for harm occurring 

upon the premises varies with the status of the entrant 

complaining of injury.'' Sutherland v. Saint Frances Hospital, 

Inc., 595 P.2d 780, 781 (Okla. 1979). Under North's pleadings in 

this case, even assuming that he was rightfully on the premises, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 86-1790 Document: 010110025133 Date Filed: 01/25/1988 Page: 2 
he had at most the status of a licensee because the owner derived 

no business or commercial benefit from his presence. See Foster 

v. Harding, 426 P.2d 355, 360 (Okla. 1967). The only duty a 

landowner owes to a licensee is t o refrain from inflicting wanton 

or willful injury, id., and North did not allege willful or wanton 

conduct by Cargill. 

North argues that Cargill's duty was heightened by its 

alleged knowledge that employees used the grain el evator for 

social and drinking purposes, citing Oklahoma Biltmore, Inc. v. 

Williams, 182 Okla. 574, 79 P.2d 202 (1938). As the court there 

pointed out, however, the force t hat made the situation dangerous 

was a hidden peril and was under the control of the defendant's 

agent at the time the injury occurred. Id. at 206. In the 

instant case, riding down from the top of a grain elevator is 

undeniably an obvious danger, and at the time of the injury the 

man-lift was not under t h e cont rol of Cargill's employee. 

Although North's intoxication may have prevented him from 

fully appreciating this peril, his intoxication was not a factor 

within Cargill's control. Under analogous circumstances, Oklahoma 

has held that the defendant is not liable. See C.R. Anthony Co. 

v. Million, 435 P.2d 116 (Okla. 19 67). There, the plaintiff, who 

was blinded by the sun shining i nto her eyes, misjudged the height 

o f an awning and wa l ke d into it. In directing a judgment for the 

defendant, the court found it significant that the factor which 

-3-

Appellate Case: 86-1790 Document: 010110025133 Date Filed: 01/25/1988 Page: 3 
hid an otherwise obvious peril was not a circumstance created by 

the defendant. Id. at 118. We believe that rationale is equally 

applicable here. 

North also asserts that Cargill is liable under respondeat 

superior for the negligence of its employee in bringing North to 

the top of the grain elevator. However, under Oklahoma law North 

must show that the conduct complained of occurred "in the course 

of the servant's or agent's employment.'' Thompson v. Madison 

Machinery Co. Inc., 684 P.2d 565, 570 (Okla. App. 1984). If the 

acts are beyond the scope of the agent's authority, they must at 

least be incidental to and in furthe r ance of the business of the 

employer. See Dill v. Rader, 533 P.2d 650, 655-56 (Okla. App. 

1975). No such factual assertions were made here. 

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 86-1790 Document: 010110025133 Date Filed: 01/25/1988 Page: 4