Lead Opinion
This is one of four cases concerning the duty an Indiana landowner or occupier owes to his social guests to protect them from physical harm while they are on his premises.
The plaintiff in this cаse, Dennis Parks, is the brother and close friend of the defendant/landowner, Charles Parks. Over the years, the two men have helped each other perform a variety of tasks without compensatiоn.
On the morning of May 14, 1988, Charles telephoned Dennis and asked for his helр in constructing a carport on Charles' property. Dennis agrеed to help, and he went to Charles' home that afternoon. Charles and Dennis, along with their younger brother Marvin, spent several hours digging hоles and setting support posts for the carport. Onee the рoles were set, it became necessary to retrieve lumber from Charles' garage for use in completing the carport. Dennis decided to use his truck to move the wood.
Charles' driveway lay between Dennis and his truck. Charles had prepared the driveway for thе installation of a new layer of gravel by placing a series of 2 x 4's along the drive. Each 2 x 4 was held in place by an eleven-inch рiece of steel driven eight inches into the ground. Dennis was aware of the 2 x 4's but did not know about the steel stakes. As he walked toward his truck, hе either knocked over a 2 x 4 or tripped on it and impaled his lеft foot on a steel stake. As a result, Dennis sustained severe damаge to muscles, ligaments, joints and blood vessels in his foot.
Dennis sued Charlеs for negligence. Charles moved for summary judgment arguing that Dennis was a sоcial guest/licensee at the time of his accident, and that Charles' only duty to him was to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring him and to warn him of hidden perils. The trial court granted summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Pаrks v. Parks,
Dennis came onto Charles' property at Charles' express invitation. For the reasons announced today in Burrell v. Meads,
We vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for a trial on the merits.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The opinion refleсts extended and careful research and gives an accurаte portrayal of the existing law in Indiana and other jurisdictions on this subject. However, I cannot join the majority in its conclusion that a century of casemade law now should be overturned and sociаl guests treated as invitees.
Our judicial system is grossly overburdened today with a litigious society in which citizens appear to be playing the judicial system as though it were a lottery. Today's decision will accelerate this situation. Under this decision, any person who entertains social guests on his premises can certainly not afford to do so unless he carries a large amount of insurance to protеct him in such a situation. Even girded with generous insurance coverage, he must be prepared to endure prolonged litigation which hаs a great possibility to ensue.
I would leave the law as it is and deny transfer in this case.
Notes
. This dissent was written in response to Burrell v. Meads (1991), Ind.,