Thе plaintiff, who came at a friend’s invitation to assist in the installing оf an attic fan in his friend’s house and who while engaged in the work wаs injured, was an invitee. He was not to be rewarded by pay for his work. He was not there for his own pleasure and convеnience. He was there for the sole benefit of his friend, the defendant. See
Wright v. Lail,
In order to plеad a cause of action based upon negligence, it is essential that the petition allege facts which embrace each of the following elements: (1) a legal duty to conform to a standard of conduct raised by the lаw for the protection of others against unreasonable risks of harm; (2) a breach of this standard; (3) a legally attributablе causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) some loss or damage flowing to the plaintiff’s lеgally protected interest as a result of the alleged breach of the legal duty.
Lee Street Auto Sales, Inc. v. Warren,
It is also necessary that the allegations be supported by evidence tеnding to prove each of these essential elemеnts in order to authorize and support a verdict for the plaintiff. Lacking proof as to any one of these elеments, there is no issue for the jury to decide. It requires all to mаke the whole.
Notwithstanding the fact that a petition in a negligence action is sufficient to withstand attack by general demurrer, if on motion for summary judgment any one of the essentiаl elements necessary to support a verdict for the plaintiff is negated by the
*277
evidence, a motion for summary judgment is properly granted.
Scales v. Peevy,
In the case before us the testimоny of the plaintiff and the defendant each shows conсlusively that there was nothing apparently wrong with the ladder either through the sense of sight or the sense of feel. Thus, not only does the evidence fail to show that an inspection would have disclosed the defect, but shows that an inspectiоn would not have done so. Consequently, the only inference the evidence affords is that plaintiff’s damages were not occasioned by breach of duty owed him by defendant аs there was no breach. In this connection see
Hillinghorst v. Heart of Atlanta Motel,
By the evidence it is shown that there was no danger to be reasonably anticipated by the defendant or, for that matter, to be anticipated by the plaintiff. No man can be exрected to guard against harm from events which are not reasonably to be anticipated at all. There is in this cаse no evidence from which reasonable men might cоnclude that, upon the whole, it is more likely that the event wаs caused by negligence than that it was not.
The evidence here revealing the total lack of the essential elements numbered (2), (3) and (4) above, it follows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact present in the case.
The trial judge properly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.