Carter v. Kinney, 896 S.W.2d 926 (1995) p165.

duty of land owners and occupiers

• Carter arrived at D's house at 7:30 in the morning for bible study
• P slipped on a patch of ice and broke his leg

Carters filed suit against the Kinneys. Kinneys moved for summary judgement. Trial court sustained on the ground that P was a licensee and that the Kinneys did not have a duty to a licensee with respect to a dangerous condition of which they had no knowledge.

What was Mr. Carter's status? Was he an invitee or a licensee?

A landowner owes no duty of protection to a licensee.

The invitation was not the sort that makes an invitee. P was a licensee. Therefore the D had no duty to protect him from unknown dangerous conditions.

An entrant becomes an invitee when the possessor invites with the expectation of a material benefit from the visit or extends the expectation to the public generally. The premises were not opened to the public, and P did not enter D's land to afford D and material benefit.

three broad types of plaintiffs in premises liability cases:

1. trespassers - no permission to enter
2. licensees - persons who enter premises with permission
3. invitees - a person who has permission and believes the premises have been made safe to receive him. Also the invitee has to enter the land to afford landowner a material benefit