Court Opinion

ID: 9644851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:06:34.574412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:18.962236
License: Public Domain

Condon, C. J.,
dissenting. I dissent for the following reasons. The plaintiff Vera R. Goyette predicated her right to recover from the defendant on an alleged “arrangement” between him and her husband whereby the latter was permitted to bring other persons with him when he tied up his boat at the defendant’s pontoon. This is dear from her declaration and the evidence which she adduced to support it. She does not allege therein that she was a business visitor in her own right. On the contrary she relies solely on the theory that her permissive use of the pontoon under her husband’s “arrangement” with the defendant gave her the status of an invitee.
*19It was upon such theory that the trial justice, after finding that defendant had actually extended said permission, concluded “that the plaintiff Vera Goyette was not upon the premises as a licensee but was there as an invitee.” The majority here concur in that view, for in their opinion they state: “Based upon the testimony accepted by the trial justice that defendant told the husband it was permissible for him to bring other persons with him into the wharf area, we hold that his wife was an invitee.”
With that conclusion I cannot agree. In my opinion it makes a mere permission equivalent to an invitation and thus unwarrantably extends the law governing the relationship of invitor and invitee. At common law mere permission without more constituted the user a licensee to whom the owner owed no duty except not to willfully or wantonly injure him. This court has heretofore uniformly adhered to that view. Previte v. Wanskuck Co., 80 R. I. 1; New England Pretzel Co. v. Palmer, 75 R. I. 387; Davis v. Joslin Mfg. Co., 29 R. I. 101; Paolino v. McKendall, 24 R. I. 432; Beehler v. Daniels, Cornell & Co., 18 R. I. 563. In each of those cases the plaintiff was denied recovery fundamentally for the reason that the owner was not liable for the mere permissive use of his land by the plaintiff where there was no showing that such use was of any benefit to the owner.
Permission to enter upon land is not an invitation in law. Fleckenstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 91 N.J.L. 145. For example it is stated in 38 Am. Jur., Negligence §98, at page 759, citing as authority Douglas v. Bergland, 216 Mich. 380: “The mere fact that a riparian owner points out, to a person using his rollways as a fishing ground, where the owner thinks that fish may be caught, does not make the fisherman an invitee so that the riparian owner will be bound to exercise toward him the care due an invitee.” And it has been held that even an express permission does not make one an invitee unless the purpose of the *20visit to the owner’s premises was for the mutual benefit of the visitor and the owner. In other words the relationship of invitor and invitee does not arise if the entry is solely for the benefit of the visitor. Parsons v. Drake, 347 Pa. 247.
In the cases at bar plaintiff Vera R. Goyette’s use of the pontoon was of no benefit to the defendant. Rather it was solely for her benefit or pleasure. In such circumstances she could not, consistently with the law as this court has heretofore applied it, be deemed an invitee. One who enters upon the land of another for one’s own convenience or pleasure is not an invitee but a mere licensee. 38 Am. Jur., Negligence §104, p. 765. In order to establish her status as an invitee it was necessary for her to show that her use of the pontoon was of benefit to the defendant and not merely that her husband had obtained permission to bring her with him whenever he tied up his boat at the pontoon. “As a general rule, mere acquiescence in, or toleration of, an entry into, or use of, premises for purposes in which the owner or occupant has no beneficial interest does not give to the person so entering the status of an invitee.” 65 C.J.S. Negligence §43 (3) c., p. 513.
Therefore I would sustain the defendant’s exception and reverse the trial justice’s decision on the ground that it is against the law. And while on such view I do not reach the question discussed by Mr. Justice Frost I nevertheless join in his dissent. I also desire to state that I concur in that portion of the opinion of the majority wherein they overrule the plaintiffs’ second count which is based upon the defendant’s alleged exclusive control of the instrumentality that caused plaintiff Vera R. Goyette’s injury.