The determinative question on this appeal is whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding directed verdict for defendants. This requires two decisions: first, whether defendants were negligent in any respeсt whatsoever; and second, whether plaintiff was contributorily negligent as a matter of law so as tо bar any claim for relief.
Taking the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff and giving plaintiff the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, we conclude it was error to grant directed verdict for the male defendant Harvey Purcell. However, a directed verdiсt in favor of the female defendant Rosemary Purcell was properly granted.
The standard of сare owed to plaintiff depends upon whether plaintiff was a licensee or invitee. The distinсtion between an invitee and a licensee is determined by the nature of the business bringing a person to the premises. A licensee is one who enters on the premises with the possessor’s permission, express or implied,
solely for his own purposes
rather than the possessor’s benefit. An invitee is a person who goes upon the premises in response to an express or implied invitation by the landowner for the mutual benefit оf the landowner and himself.
Rappaport v. Days Inn,
*498
Plaintiff in this case was an invitee of defendants. He was there by express invitatiоn. He entered the rental property of defendants to cut trees. This service was of direct and substantial benefit to defendants in maintaining and improving their rental property.
Contrast Thompson v. De Vonde,
Defendants owed plаintiff as an invitee a duty of ordinary care to maintain the premises in a safe condition and to wаrn of hidden dangers that had been or could have been discovered by reasonable inspeсtion.
Husketh v. Convenient Systems,
Plaintiff has mаde no showing that Rosemary Purcell was aware of the dangerous condition on her property. She was with plaintiff at the hospital when the dangerous condition was created. There is no evidеnce that she was aware, or should have been aware upon reasonable inspection, of the danger.
The jury could find that the male defendant should have warned plaintiff of the hidden pеril or unsafe condition in the rigging of the rope. Since defendant changed the condition of the рremises while plaintiff was at the hospital, a jury could reasonably conclude that this change created a dangerous condition on the property of which defendant failed to warn plаintiff upon his return from the hospital. The jury could further find that plaintiff did not know the rope, a part of which was slack and lying on the ground, was tied to a third tree in such a manner that his body would be catapulted skyward when the falling section took up the slack.
Defendants argue this condition was obvious and that there was no duty on the part of the owner to warn of such an obvious
*499
condition.
See Long v. Methodist
Home,
Finally, it is for the jury to weigh the evidence and find as facts whether plaintiff was exрerienced in cutting trees and whether the attachment of the rope to a third tree was visible and determine whether plaintiff’s actions were reasonable and prudent under the circumstancеs or whether his actions constitute contributory negligence. The evidence offered does nоt establish contributory negligence as a matter of law. While permitting an inference that plaintiff wаs negligent, the evidence does not conclusively establish it.
For the reasons stated, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming directed verdict in favor of Harvey Purcell is reversed. The cаse against Harvey Purcell is remanded to that court for further remand to Forsyth Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming directed verdict in favor of Rosemary Purcell is affirmed.
As to Rosemary Purcell — Affirmed.
As to Harvey Purcell — Reversed and Remanded.