Mrs. Blаnche G. Slaughter sued Mrs. Mary F. Slaughter, her daughter, and Charles F. Slaughter, Jr., her son-in-law, for injuries received when she fell in the home of the son-in-law and daughter. The depositions of the plaintiff and the daughter were taken, revealing the following factual situation.
Mary, the daughter, called plaintiff and asked her to come over to take care of Mary’s son Steve, who was recuperating from influenza, while Mary went grocery shopping. Plaintiff acceded to the request and went to the home of Mary and her son-in-law. Upon arrival Steve was on the couch in the living room. At *375 one end of the room were two easy chairs and a lamp table. Plaintiff seated herself in the chair next to the couch, and Mary sat in the other easy chair next to her. After looking at some get-well cards, plaintiff got up and went to Steve on the couch to see whether he needed asрirin. Mary got up from her chair, kicking out a footstool which accompanied that particular chair, went into the kitchen to get some ginger ale, brought it back and handed it to plaintiff who was to give it to Steve, took some toast crumbs from Steve, and walked back into the kitchen. Plaintiff gave the ginger ale to Steve and, when he had finished with it, got up оut of her chair and took the glass or mug from him at the couch. Mary called from the kitchen that she was going to throw the toast crumbs to the birds, and after a few seconds when she hаd taken two or three steps in the kitchen she heard plaintiff fall in the living room. Plaintiff had turned from the couch and started toward the kitchen with the mug when Mary called to her, and, loоking toward the kitchen, she fell forward, presumably over the footstool in her path, though she testified that she "fell over something” and that later her daughter told her that she had kicked the footstool out and that it was what she fell over. The daughter did not see her mother fall, but surmised that she fell over the footstool.
Mary and her husband had been living in the house for approximately six years, and the same furniture, including the footstool, had been in the living room during that time. Plaintiff had visited there approximately once a week during the six years, аnd she had observed the footstool by the same chair on many occasions. The footstool was large, and on the occasion in question it was not hidden but was away frоm the chair, a position it did not generally occupy. The lighting and surroundings were such that it was readily observable.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, and plaintiff apрeals. Held:
1. Plaintiff alleges no act of negligence, and offers no proof of any, against her son-in-law, Charles F. Slaughter. She does allege that he and the daughter own the hоuse where they live and where she says she was injured, but ownership alone im
*376
poses no liability for injury sustained on the premises. The owner or occupier of land is not an insurer оf the safety of those who may go thereon.
Feldman v. Whipkey’s Drug Shop,
Nor is the husband liable for tоrts of his wife merely because of the relationship.
Durden v. Maddox,
2. While the parties argue the question as to whether plaintiff was an invitee, in which event she would be owed the duty of ordinary cаre in keeping the premises safe
(Code
§ 105-401), or whether she was a social guest, in which event she would be owed a lesser degree of care
(Laurens v. Rush,
"A landowner is not the insurer of an invitee’s safety.”
Watson v. C.& S. Bank,
In the instant cаse it does not appear that there was any defect in the premises, or any defect in the footstool itself. It cannot be considered negligent to move a fоotstool about in the living area of a home, which is the gist of plaintiff’s complaint. Footstools used in connection with chairs are common in nearly every home, and it is сommon knowledge that articles of furniture such as chairs and footstools do not occupy a fixed status in the room. It is the very nature of a footstool
not
to occupy a fixed position. The footstool in question was large, conspicuous, and apparent, and under the circumstances of this case there is nothing to suggest that the daughtеr could or should reasonably have foreseen that injury would result from having the footstool in the living room or from calling to plaintiff about the bread crumbs.
Misenhamer v. Pharr,
"The [footstool] was not a slight or inconspicuous one, as in the cases of
McCrory Stores Corp. v. Ahern,
Thus, since the wife cannot be held, the husband could nоt, even if there were an agency relationship.
3. The cases of
Martin v. Henson,
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
There is a presumption of agency of the wife "in all purchases of necessaries suitable to her condition and habits of life, made for the use of herself and the family.” Code §§ 53-508, 53-510.