Case Name: Wilbur COLEMAN v. UNITED FENCE COMPANY and GRAY SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1984-05-07
Citations: 282 Ark. 344
Docket Number: 84-48
Parties: Wilbur COLEMAN v. UNITED FENCE COMPANY and GRAY SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.
Judges: Purtle, Hays and Hollingsworth, JJ., dissent.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 282
Pages: 344–347

Head Matter:
Wilbur COLEMAN v. UNITED FENCE COMPANY and GRAY SUPPLY COMPANY, INC.
84-48
668 S.W.2d 536
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered May 7, 1984
[Rehearing denied June 11, 1984.]
James E. Smedley, for appellant.
Flail, Tucker F Lovell, for appellee United Fence Company.
Wright, Lindsey <F Jennings, for appellee Gray Supply Company, Inc.

Opinion:
Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.
Appellant, Wilbur Coleman, was inj ured when he stepped in a post hole dug on property owned by appellee, Gray Supply Company, Inc. Appellant had parked his car on appellee's land without permission and had left the car there for approximately two weeks. Subsequently, Gray Supply Company, Inc. contracted with appellee, United Fence Company, to construct a fence on the property. United Fence Company dug post holes and sent word to appellant requesting that he remove his car. When appellant arrived to push his car off the property, he stepped in a post hole and incurred inj ury to his back. The Pulaski County Circuit Court directed a verdict for both appellees, ruling that the evidence failed to establish that appellant was anything other than a trespasser and that there was no proof of willful or wanton conduct on the part of appellees. We affirm.
Appellant first argues that he was an invitee, not a trespasser or licensee, because others in the neighborhood had parked cars on the property and because appellee, United Fence Company, in asking him to move his car, had "invited" him onto the property. A trespasser is one who comes upon land without the consent of the possessor. A licensee is a person who comes upon the land with a privilege arising from the consent of the possessor. An invitee is one induced to come onto property for the business benefit of the possessor. W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 58 (4th ed. 1981) See also Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Drew, 276 Ark. 390, 398, 635 S.W.2d 252 (1982).
Appellant argues that because appellee requested him to move his car, he became something other than a trespasser. However, it is undisputed that he was a trespasser when he parked his car on the property because of the Arkansas rule that the mere acquiescence by a landowner in the public use of private land does not amount to an implied invitation of use. Chicago, R.I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Harrison, 204 Ark. 361, 162 S.W.2d 62 (1942). Appellant's abandonment of his car on appellee's property resulted in a continuing trespass on appellee's property. W. Prosser, supra, § 13. The general rule is that the possessor of land is not liable for injury to trespassers caused by his failure to exercise reasonable care to put his land in a safe condition for them. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 333 (1965). There is no evidence here to support appellant's claim that he was an invitee; therefore, appellant owed him no duty to maintain his property in a safe condition. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court did not err in directing a verdict for appellees.
Appellant urges this Court to abolish our long-settled distinction between invitee, licensee, and trespasser which we decline to do.
Affirmed.
Purtle, Hays and Hollingsworth, JJ., dissent.