 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
LANDRY v. HILTON HEAD PLAN. PROP. OWN. ASSOC.12/12/1994
In this premises liability action, Nina Landry sued Hilton Head Plantation Property Owners Association (Association) and Tim McBride and Ronald Malphrus, doing business as Hilton Head Landscape Maintenance (Landscape Maintenance), alleging breach of duties to discover, remedy, and warn about a dangerous condition on a common area of Hilton Head Plantation. Her husband, Charles Landry, sued for loss of consortium under the same theories. The trial court instructed the jury that Mrs. Landry was a licensee as a matter of law. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants. The primary issue on appeal concerns whether Mrs. Landry was a licensee or an invitee. Other issues relate to the exclusion of certain evidence. We reverse as to the Association and remand for a new trial. We affirm as to Landscape Maintenance.
Mr. and Mrs. Landry own a home in Hilton Head Plantation, a gated community that is open only to residents and their guests. The Landrys paid a premium on the price of their home because it is located in this gated community with common recreational areas. Mrs. Landry alleges she fell and broke her wrist when she stepped into a hole while walking across a sidewalk in one of these common areas.
The Association is a corporation that owns and has a contractual duty to maintain the common areas of the plantation pursuant to the covenants governing the Plantation. As homeowners in the plantation, the Landrys are automatically members and part owners of the Association. The Landrys, at the time of the accident, paid a mandatory annual assessment of approximately $500. The Association used part of this assessment to maintain the plantation's common areas.
Landscape Maintenance contracted with the Association to provide landscaping and maintenance services for the plantation's common areas, including the area where Mrs. Landry fell.
I.
The Landrys first argue the trial court erred in charging the jury Mrs. Landry was a licensee while in the common area where she fell and injured herself.
South Carolina recognizes four classes of persons present on the property of another: adult trespassers, invitees, licensees, and children. F. PATRICK HUBBARD & ROBERT L. FELIX, THE SOUTH CAROLINA LAW OF TORTS 76 (1990). A landowner's duty toward a person to maintain his land in a certain condition depends upon the person's status. Id.
Because Mrs. Landry is obviously not a trespasser or a child, we must determine whether she is a licensee or an invitee.
In Neil v. Byrum, 288 S.C. 472, 343 S.E.2d 615 (1986), the supreme court defined a licensee as "a person who is privileged to enter upon land by virtue of the possessor's consent." Id. at 473, 343 S.E.2d at 616. A licensee has also been defined as one who enters upon the land of another at the "mere sufferance" of the owner with the primary benefit being to the licensee. 62 Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability ยง 108 (1990). A landowner owes a licensee a duty to use reasonable care to discover the licensee, to conduct activities on the land so as not to harm the licensee, and to warn the licensee of any concealed dangerous conditions or activities. Neil, 288 S.C. at 473, 343 S.E.2d at 616; HUBBARD & FELIX at 78.
In Parker v. Stevenson Oil Co., 245 S.C. 275, 140 S.E.2d 177 (1965), the supreme court defined an invitee as "one who enters upon the premises of another at the express or implied invitation of the occupant, especially when he is upon a matter of mutual interest or advantage." Id. at 280, 140 S.E.2d at 179. "Unlike a licensee, an invitee enters the premises with the implied assurance of preparation and reasonable care for his protection and safety while he is th
Page 1 2 3 South Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|