Case Name: Renee George Mercer, Appellant, v. Elden Fritts and Mrs. Betty Fritts, Appellees
Court: Kansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Kansas
Decision Date: 1984-10-26
Citations: 236 Kan. 73
Docket Number: No. 54,391
Parties: Renee George Mercer, Appellant, v. Elden Fritts and Mrs. Betty Fritts, Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kansas Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 73–78

Head Matter:
No. 54,391
Renee George Mercer, Appellant, v. Elden Fritts and Mrs. Betty Fritts, Appellees.
(689 P.2d 774)
Opinion filed October 26, 1984.
Dan L. Wulz, of Schroer, Rice, Bryan & Lykins, P.A., of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellant.
J. Franklin Hummer, of Davis, Unrein, Hummer & McCallister, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellees.
Steve R. Fabert, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, of Topeka, was on the amicus curiae brief for the Kansas Association of Defense Counsel.
Robert E. Keeshan, of Hamilton, Peterson, Tipton, Muxlow & Keeshan, of Topeka, was on the amicus curiae brief for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Holmes, J.:
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Renee George Mercer, from an order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Elden Fritts and his wife, Betty Fritts. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order and directed that the case be remanded for further proceedings. Mercer v. Fritts, 9 Kan. App. 2d 232, 676 P.2d 150 (1984). We granted a petition for review of that decision.
The facts surrounding the injuries received by plaintiff are set forth in detail in the Court of Appeals opinion and need not be repeated here. Briefly summarized it appears plaintiff was an admitted social guest at defendants' rural home and was allowed to ride a stallion owned by the defendants. Elden Fritts brought a mare into the view of the stallion; the stallion reared and fell upon plaintiff, who sustained serious personal injury. Plaintiff does not contend that the defendants were guilty of any willful or wanton conduct which led to her injuries.
The trial court, in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants, ruled that the law of premises liability controlled and in the absence of any willful or wanton conduct the defendant landowners would not be held responsible for injury to a social guest or licensee upon their property. Appellant contends the premises liability doctrine is not applicable and that the law pertaining to injury by an animal is the proper one to be applied to the facts of this case. The Court of Appeals so held and we agree with' the majority of that court. The trial court and Chief Judge Foth, in his dissent in this case, were of the opinion that our decisions in Britt v. Allen County Community Jr. College, 230 Kan. 502, 638 P.2d 914 (1982); Zuther v. Schild, 224 Kan. 528, 581 P.2d 385 (1978), and Gerchberg v. Loney, 223 Kan. 446, 576 P.2d 593 (1978), required the application of premises liability law as opposed to animal law. While it is true that the application of the law of premises liability, as it now stands in Kansas, and animal law to the facts of this case result in inconsistent standards of care, we are of the opinion that the conclusion reached by the majority of the Court of Appeals is correct. The Honorable Frederick Woleslagel, District Judge Retired, sitting with the Court of Appeals, in a well-reasoned opinion, has adequately covered the arguments and positions of the parties in the majority opinion in this case and we see nothing to be gained by repeating what has already been said in that opinion or by unduly extending this opinion. We concur with the results reached in that opinion.
Appellant's second point on appeal is that if this court should determine that premises liability law is controlling then we should reconsider and abolish the distinctions in the duty owed by a landowner to an invitee and that owed to a licensee as adhered to in Britt and its predecessors. In view of our decision that premises law does not apply in this case we do not reach that point.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, the decision of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed by the Court of Appeals.