Opinion ID: 2360513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: responsibility for injuries suffered beyond the so-called leased premises

Text: The defendants further contend that, even if they would be properly responsible in damages for an injury to the plaintiff suffered within the area of the armory building itself or upon the steps leading to it, nevertheless, since plaintiff's fall took place beyond the area over which they had possession and control, they owed no duty to the plaintiff and the judgment against them in error. The jury could find from the evidence in this record that the plaintiff fell as he stepped off the steps leading to the Armory, at least within the immediate area that a patron of the dance would have to use to make his exit following the close of the ball. It is true that the rental agreement did not purport to lease the public parking lot adjacent to the armory building, nor any walkway or driveway leading thereto from the public highway. The evidence is clear, however, that the approaches to the Armory and the parking lot were always used in the past in connection with activities conducted at the Armory under similar rental agreements as existed in the instant case. It is self evident from the record that, if the approaches to the Armory could not be used by the patrons of this New Year's Eve ball, then the dance itself could not be held. By inviting the public to this dance, the Armory Committee implicitly extended an invitation to use the approaches to the Armory. The plaintiff, having purchased a ticket to attend the ball, was a business invitee of the Armory Committee. The owner or occupier of land owes to his business invitees the positive duty of exercising reasonable care to provide him with walkways or areaways which he is invited to use, or which he would be reasonably expected to use, which are reasonably safe for his use. Even though he does not insure safety to his business invitees, nevertheless, his legal obligation is to use ordinary care to ensure that the premises to be used are reasonably safe in the light of the totality of the existing circumstances. The mere fact that snow and ice conditions are prevalent during the course of our Maine winters is not sufficient justification for the insulation of the occupier of land from liability to his business invitees exposed to an unreasonable risk of harm. Isaacson v. Husson College, 1972, Me., 297 A.2d 98. In Isaacson v. Husson College, supra, the plaintiff's injuries were suffered upon an areaway within the premises occupied and controlled by the College. In the instant case, the accident happened as the plaintiff stepped off the premises occupied and controlled by the Armory Committee, but in the immediate areaway which the plaintiff business invitee was either invited to use, or which he would be reasonably expected to use, to make his exit from the premises upon which he had been invited to come. Courts generally, in analogous situations, have extended the duty of the invitor to his business invitees beyond the precise boundaries of the premises under his control or occupancy to include the approaches which they are expressly or impliedly invited to use or which they would be reasonably expected to use, even though these approaches be not under the invitor's absolute control. See, Cannon v. S. S. Kresge Co., 1938, 233 Mo.App. 173, 116 S.W.2d 559; Viands v. Safeway Stores, 1954, D. C.Mun.App., 107 A.2d 118; Shields v. Food Fair Stores of Florida, 1958, Fla. App., 106 So.2d 90; McDonald v. Frontier Lanes, Inc., 1971, 1 Ill.App.3d 345, 272 N. E.2d 369. See also, Phillips v. Seltzer, 1957, 2 Cir., 240 F.2d 857. In the instant case, all the actively participating defendant members of the Armory Committee owed the plaintiff business invitee the positive duty of exercising through their associates or agents in charge of the dance reasonable care to provide him with walkways or areaways reasonably safe from unreasonable risk of harm in the light of the totality of the existing circumstances. It was for the jury to say whether this duty was properly and sufficiently discharged. See, Cooley v. Makse, 1964, 46 Ill.App.2d 25, 196 N.E.2d 396.