Opinion ID: 1913445
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Plaintiff's Status

Text: Next, defendant complains that the district court determined as a matter of law that plaintiff was an invitee. Defendant urges that had the jury been permitted to consider the matter, it might well have found that plaintiff was but a licensee. We note at this point that the parties raise no issue as to whether the fact that plaintiff is an owner of the premises renders the invitee-licensee analysis inappropriate. However, because no such issue has been raised and because the case was tried on that theory, we, without passing any judgment on the matter, dispose of the case upon the theory on which it was tried. See, Ingerslew v. Bartholomew, 216 Neb. 836, 346 N.W.2d 258 (1984); Mathis v. State, 178 Neb. 701, 135 N.W.2d 17 (1965). Under that circumstance, the determination as to whether plaintiff is an invitee or a licensee is indeed important, for the law imposes a duty of greater care for the protection of an invitee than it does for a licensee. Presho v. J.M. McDonald Co., 181 Neb. 840, 151 N.W.2d 451 (1967). Under our law, a licensee is defined as one who is privileged to enter or remain upon land by virtue of the possessor's consent. Wiles v. Metzger, 238 Neb. 943, 473 N.W.2d 113 (1991); McCurry v. Young Men's Christian Assn., 210 Neb. 278, 313 N.W.2d 689 (1981); Roan v. Bruckner, 180 Neb. 399, 143 N.W.2d 108 (1966). A licensee is on the premises of another for the licensee's own interest or gratification. Such person is exercising the privilege solely for that person's own convenience or benefit and does not stand in any contractual relation with the owner or occupant of the premises. See Malolepszy v. Central Market, 143 Neb. 356, 9 N.W.2d 474 (1943). In general, an invitee is a person who goes on the premises of another in answer to the express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant on the business of the owner or occupant for the mutual advantage of both parties. Kliewer v. Wall Constr. Co., 229 Neb. 867, 429 N.W.2d 373 (1988); Anderson v. Moser, 169 Neb. 134, 98 N.W.2d 703 (1959); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 332 (1965). A business visitor or invitee, on the other hand, is one who is expressly or impliedly invited or permitted to enter or remain on the premises in the possession of another for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with the business of the possessor or with business dealings between them. Roan v. Bruckner, supra . Similar definitions are found in Schild v. Schild, 176 Neb. 282, 125 N.W.2d 900 (1964), and Lindelow v. Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc., 174 Neb. 1, 115 N.W.2d 776 (1962). The distinction between invitees and licensees rests on the purpose for which the invitation was extended. See, Roan v. Bruckner, supra ; Lindelow v. Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc., supra (express invitation or consent that person be on premises does not by itself make person an invitee). If it is an invitation for the personal pleasure, convenience, or benefit of the person enjoying the privilege, the person receiving it is a licensee. But if the invitation relates to the business of the one who gives it or for the mutual advantage of a business nature for both parties, the party receiving the invitation is an invitee. Roan v. Bruckner, supra ; Lindelow v. Peter Kiewit Sons', Inc., supra . Under this economic benefit test of invitee status, one who enters upon land of another is not entitled to the status of invitee unless the visit is directly or indirectly connected with business dealings between them. Roan v. Bruckner, supra ; the Restatement, supra. In Presho v. J.M. McDonald Co., supra , we relied on the elements of the economic benefit test to determine whether the injured party, who went into the backroom of a retail store for an empty packing box to mail an article she had purchased elsewhere and for which no charge would be made, was an invitee or a licensee. Concluding that the injured party was not an invitee, we distinguished that part of the store in which merchandise was displayed and sold from that part in which the party was injured. In similar fashion, the Lindelow court concluded that where the employees' use of the employer's recreational facilities conferred no immediate business benefit to the employer and the employees' attendance at the facilities had nothing to do with their work, the injured employee had been granted the privilege to make use of the facilities as a licensee and not as an invitee. While the facts in Von Dollen v. Stulgies, 177 Neb. 5, 128 N.W.2d 115 (1964), are not identical to those now at hand, Von Dollen is nonetheless instructive. Therein, Von Dollen's sister was having a new house built. One afternoon when Von Dollen visited the premises to view the progress of the construction and to measure a window for a traverse rod, wallboard that had been stacked against a wall fell, scraping Von Dollen's right leg and pinning her right foot to the floor. Von Dollen argued that she was an invitee entitled to the affirmative duty of reasonable care to keep the premises safe and to anticipate her presence. We, however, concluded that Von Dollen was a mere licensee. Determinative was the fact that as Von Dollen had no contract with the builder, the builder was not responsible to Von Dollen for its work, and, thus, Von Dollen's visits had no relationship to any business or matter of mutual advantage to her and the builder. The Kansas Supreme Court, in Hanks v. Riffe Constr. Co., 232 Kan. 800, 658 P.2d 1030 (1983), determined that a purchaser of a house under construction, who was injured when a stack of Sheetrock fell on her leg, was, as a matter of law, a business invitee to whom the contractor owed a duty to exercise ordinary care. Noting that throughout the progress of the construction the purchaser from time to time had criticism about the quality of the workmanship, which she would relay to the contractor's employees, the Hanks court reasoned that by the execution of the real estate contract, [the purchaser] became [an owner] of a contract interest in the property [with] rights in the property substantially different from those of the casual visitor to the premises who is there only with the permission of the owner and concluded that the purchaser had been invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land. Id. at 804, 658 P.2d at 1033. In Singleton v. Charlebois Const. Co., 690 S.W.2d 845 (Mo.App.1985), a prospective home buyer was injured by falling Sheetrock as he inspected premises under construction. The Singleton court concluded the prospective buyer was a business invitee on the basis of the economic benefit to the builder and an implied invitation extended by the For Sale sign in front of the house. Furthermore, the court held that because the evidence which went to the establishment of the prospective buyer's status was not disputed, the determination of his status was for the court. The facts essential to the determination of plaintiff's status here are likewise not in dispute. Defendant was doing work for plaintiff, and she thus had a right to control what was done under her arrangement with defendant. It is this circumstance which distinguishes the case at hand from Von Dollen v. Stulgies, supra . Although there was no direct testimony that defendant expressly invited the Palmtags, [a]n invitation is inferred where there is a common interest or mutual advantage, or where an owner or occupant of premises, by acts or conduct, leads another to believe the premises, or something thereon, were intended to be used by such other person; that such use is not only acquiesced in by the owner or occupant, but is in accordance with the intention or design for which the way, place or thing was adapted or prepared or allowed to be used.... Kruntorad v. Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co., 111 Neb. 753, 755-56, 197 N.W. 611, 612 (1924). See, also, Guinn v. Murphy, 788 F.Supp. 525 (D.Kan.1992). The only permissible inference from the undisputed facts is that plaintiff was at the jobsite for the mutual benefit of herself and defendant and that her visit served defendant's economic interest. Thus, she was, as a matter of law, an invitee. See, Troll v. Schoonmaker Bros., Inc., 34 A.D.2d 1030, 310 N.Y.S.2d 878 (1970) (homeowner injured visiting construction site of her new home had right to be on premises and was business invitee); Polinelli v. Union Supply Co., 403 Pa. 547, 170 A.2d 351 (1961) (purchaser of house, who was at house at invitation of vendor, was business invitee). Contra Shoffner v. Pilkerton, 292 Ky. 407, 166 S.W.2d 870 (1942) (whether plaintiff homeowner was invitee was question for jury in action against contractor). While instructions withdrawing consideration of material issues of fact presented by the pleadings and evidence are erroneous, Ring v. Duey, 162 Neb. 423, 76 N.W.2d 433 (1956), the trial court must eliminate all matters not in dispute and submit only the controverted questions of fact on which the verdict must depend, Kluender v. Mattea, 214 Neb. 327, 334 N.W.2d 416 (1983). When reasonable persons can reach only one conclusion, questions of fact which would normally be submitted to a jury become questions of law for the court to decide. Gillam v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 241 Neb. 414, 489 N.W.2d 289 (1992); Ditloff v. Otto, 239 Neb. 377, 476 N.W.2d 675 (1991); Economy Housing Co. v. Rosenberg, 239 Neb. 267, 475 N.W.2d 899 (1991). Where facts are conceded, undisputed, or are such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion therefrom, it is the duty of the court to decide the question as a matter of law, rather than submit it to the jury for determination. Johnson v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co., 207 Neb. 521, 300 N.W.2d 10 (1980); Woodsmall v. Marijo, Inc., 206 Neb. 405, 293 N.W.2d 378 (1980). Accordingly, the district court correctly determined plaintiff's status to be that of an invitee as a matter of law.