Court Opinion

ID: 9646982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:19:20.135082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:34.899680
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. In affirming a directed verdict against the appellant, the majority relies almost entirely on Brunnell v. Signore, 263 Cal. Rptr. 415, 215 Cal. App.3d 122 (4th Dist. 1989). But there are significant differences between this case and the Brunnell case. Arkansas applies the traditional common law with respect to trespassers, licensees and invitees and the duty owed them by owners and occupiers of land. Baldwin v. Mosley, 295 Ark. 285, 748 S.W.2d 146 (1988); Davis v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 195 Ark. 23, 110 S.W.2d 695 (1937). California, on the other hand, abolished that theory of liability over twenty years ago and replaced it with a general duty of ordinary care. Rowland v. Christian, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561 (1968). Thus, California has a distinctly different concept of liability than Arkansas. Under the law of this state, an owner owes an invitee an affirmative duty to see that the premises are reasonably safe. AMCI 1104. Prosser gives this explanation of the duty owed to an invitee: The leading English case of Indermaurv. Dames laid down the rule that as to those who enter premises upon business which concerns the occupier, and upon his invitation express or implied, the latter is under an affirmative duty to protect them, not only against dangers of which he knows, but also against those which with reasonable care he might discover. The case was accepted in all common law jurisdictions, and the invitee, or as he is sometimes called the business visitor, is placed upon a higher footing than a licensee. * * * The occupier is not an insurer of the safety of invitees, and his duty is only to exercise reasonable care for their protection. But the obligation of reasonable care is a full one, applicable in all respects, and extending to everything that threatens the invitee with an unreasonable risk of harm. The occupier must not only use care not to injure the visitor by negligent activities, and warn him of hidden dangers known to the occupier, but he must also act reasonably to inspect the premises to which he does not know, and take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from dangers which are foreseeable from the arrangement or use of the property. W. Keeton, Prosser and Keeton on Torts § 61 (5th ed. 1984). Another material difference is that in the Brunnell case there was no evidence the owner had any reason to suspect that his premises presented any risk of spider bite. Whereas, the proof here is twofold: that the appellees had been told of the specific problem of spiders and had even given assurances that it would be addressed. When the proof is given its highest probative weight, I cannot say that a directed verdict was properly granted. Brown, J., joins.