Opinion ID: 1166838
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: THE COURT ERRS TODAY BY ITS RELIANCE ON ROGERS v. HENNESSEE [8] ; ROGERS IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND ON THE APPLICABLE LAW; THE COURT'S USE OF ROGERS' ANALYSIS INJECTS INTO THIS CASE FLAWED LEGAL REASONING

Text: ¶ 12 Today's pronouncement offers a flawed analysis that rests on factually distinguishable and inapposite case law. Rogers [9] is a true premises liability case. There, a student beautician slipped and fell after stepping into a puddle of water while walking from her work station to the supply pantry. The parties stood in an undisputed invitor-invitee relationship. [10] Rogers teaches that an invitor has the duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn invitees of conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls and the like. Liability in Rogers hinges on whether the occupier of the premises had timely notice of a defective and ephemeral condition  the occasional accumulation of water. There was no evidence that the owner knew or should have known of that dangerous condition caused by the water spilling from the sinks in time to remedy or avoid the defect. ¶ 13 Rogers is not a rejection of the common-law principles that govern the employer-employee liability. It was unnecessary there to address those rules because the case was submitted on (and the alleged facts called for application of) premises liability. Unlike in Rogers, this case presents a defective appliance or tool, not an ephemeral condition of the floor. A defective tool implicates a master-servant liability. This is so because the master must provide safe tools for a servant's work. Had the master-servant bond been pressed in Rogers, the outcome of that case would have been the same. The master bears no absolute liability for the safety of a servant. Legal responsibility is ascribed for negligence in maintaining those unsafe conditions of which the master either had knowledge or should have had knowledge. Moreover, unlike Weldon's case, Rogers' claim was terminated by the trial court's judgment after sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the evidence. In short, Rogers went to the jury while this case ended by summary adjudication.