Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship

614 N.W.2d 88, 462 Mich. 591

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: September 19, 2000
• Docket: 112217, Calendar No. 1
• Status: Published

Opinions

Young, J.

In this premises liability case the plaintiff, Violet Moeller, was injured when she tripped over a concrete tire stop in defendant church’s parking lot.¹ Plaintiff was visiting the church to attend bible study. Plaintiff sued the church, alleging that the defendant negligently placed the tire stops and failed to provide adequate lighting in the parking lot.

At trial, the jury was instructed on the obligations property owners owe to licensees. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the church. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial after determining that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the obligations owed to licensees rather than “public invitees” as defined in 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 332, p 176.²

We granted leave in this case to determine the proper standard of care owed to individuals on church property for noncommercial purposes. We hold that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that such individuals are licensees and not invitees. Accordingly, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision and reinstate the trial court judgment in favor of the church.

i

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On the evening of November 22, 1989, Violet Moeller accompanied her friend Pat Drake to defendant’s church to attend bible study. Ms. Moeller was not a member of the church. Ms. Drake parked her car in the church parking lot. As she exited Ms. Drake’s car, plaintiff tripped and fell over a tire stop, fracturing her left arm. Plaintiff subsequently sued the defendant church, asserting that defendant negligently placed the concrete tire stops and failed to provide adequate lighting in the parking lot.

Before trial, the church twice filed motions for summary disposition. The trial court denied both motions, but determined that Ms. Moeller was a licensee and not an invitee at the time of the accident. The case proceeded to trial, at which time the judge instructed the jury on the duties owed to licensees.³ At the close of trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The court subsequently entered a judgment of no cause on the verdict.

Plaintiff appealed, contending that the trial court erred in determining that she was a licensee at the time of her accident. The Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff was a “public invitee” as defined in 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 332, and not a licensee.⁴ The Court of Appeals acknowledged that this Court has never explicitly adopted the Restatement provision. However, on the basis of its reading of Preston v Sleziak, 383 Mich 442; 175 NW2d 759 (1970), the Court of Appeals concluded that this provision applies in Michigan and that the trial court improperly instructed the jury. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals .reversed the trial court judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. We granted defendant’s application for leave to appeal. 461 Mich 861 (1999).

n

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As a general rule, if there is evidence from which invitee status might be inferred, it is a question for the jury. See Nezworski v Mazanec, 301 Mich 43, 58; 2 NW2d 912 (1942). However, this case presents the broader question whether invitee status should be extended to an individual who enters upon church property for a noncommercial purpose. This is a question of law that we review de novo. See Cardinal Mooney High School v Michigan High School Athletic Ass’n, 437 Mich 75, 80; 467 NW2d 21 (1991).

ih

ANALYSIS

A. THE COMMON-LAW CLASSIFICATIONS

Historically, Michigan has recognized three common-law categories for persons who enter upon the land or premises of another: (1) trespasser, (2) licensee, or (3) invitee. Wymer v Holmes, 429 Mich 66, 71, n 1; 412 NW2d 213 (1987). Michigan has not abandoned these common-law classifications. Reetz v Tipit, Inc, 151 Mich App 150, 153; 390 NW2d 653 (1986). Each of these categories corresponds to a different standard of care that is owed to those injured on the owner’s premises. Thus, a landowner’s duty to a visitor depends on that visitor’s status. Wymer, supra at 71, n 1.

A “trespasser” is a person who enters upon another’s land, without the landowner’s consent. The landowner owes no duty to the trespasser except to refrain from injuring him by “wilful and wanton” misconduct. Id.

A “licensee” is a person who is privileged to enter the land of another by virtue of the possessor’s consent. Id. A landowner owes a licensee a duty only to warn the licensee of any hidden dangers the owner knows or has reason to know of, if the licensee does not know or have reason to know of the dangers involved. The landowner owes no duty of inspection or affirmative care to make the premises safe for the licensee’s visit. Id. Typically, social guests are licensees who assume the ordinary risks associated with their visit. Preston, supra at 451.

The final category is invitees. An “invitee” is “a person who enters upon the land of another upon an invitation which carries with it an implied representation, assurance, or understanding that reasonable care has been used to prepare the premises, and make [it] safe for [the invitee’s] reception.” Wymer, supra at 71, n 1. The landowner has a duty of care, not only to warn the invitee of any known dangers, but the additional obligation to also make the premises safe, which requires the landowner to inspect the premises and, depending upon the circumstances, make any necessary repairs or warn of any discovered hazards. Id. Thus, an invitee is entitled to the highest level of protection under premises liability law. Quinlivan v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, Inc, 395 Mich 244, 256; 235 NW2d 732 (1975).

A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if the owner: (a) knows of, or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover, the condition and should realize that the condition involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees; (b) should expect that invitees will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it; and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against the danger. Id. at 258, citing Restatement, § 343.

The Court of Appeals correctly recognized that invitee status is commonly afforded to persons entering upon the property of another for business purposes. See, e.g., Nezworski, supra; Pelton v Schmidt, 104 Mich 345; 62 NW 552 (1895). In this case, we are called upon to determine whether invitee status should extend to individuals entering upon church property for noncommercial purposes. Because invitee status necessarily turns on the existence of an “invitation,” we must examine our common law in order to ascertain the meaning of that term.

B. THE MEANING OF INVITATION IN MICHIGAN’S COMMON LAW

Unfortunately, our prior decisions have proven to be less than clear in defining the precise circumstances under which a sufficient invitation has been extended to a visitor to confer “invitee” status. On the one hand, several of our decisions appear to support the requirement that the landowner’s premises be held open for a commercial business purpose. See, e.g., Perl v Cohodas, Peterson, Paoli, Nast Co, 295 Mich 325; 294 NW 697 (1940); Diefenbach v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 280 Mich 507; 273 NW 783 (1937);⁵ Sink v Grand Trunk W R Co, 227 Mich 21; 198 NW 238 (1924). Indeed, several panels of our Court of Appeals have interpreted our decisions as supporting the requirement of a business purpose. See, e.g., Butler v Ramco-Gershenson, Inc, 214 Mich App 521; 542 NW2d 912 (1995); Bradford v Feeback, 149 Mich App 67; 385 NW2d 729 (1986); Leep v McComber, 118 Mich App 653; 325 NW2d 531 (1982).⁶ The “commercial purpose” distinction is sufficiently recognized in Michigan case law that there are even secondary authorities that include Michigan among those jurisdictions conferring invitee status only on business visitors. See, e.g., 95 ALR2d 992, § 4, p 1014.

In contrast with the line of cases supporting a commercial puipose requirement, some of our earlier decisions are replete with broad language suggestive of the Restatement’s “public invitee” definition, although the precise contours of the definition are difficult to discern. See, e.g., Polston v S S Kresge Co, 324 Mich 575; 37 NW2d 638 (1949);⁷ Sheldon v Flint & P M R Co, 59 Mich 172; 26 NW 507 (1886); Hargreaves v Deacon, 25 Mich 1 (1872).⁸

Finally, there is Preston, supra which is internally inconsistent on this point. Preston was interpreted by the Court of Appeals as having implicitly adopted the Restatement definition of “public invitee.” At the same time, Preston, supra at 448, quoting Cooley on Torts, appears to recognize the commercial purpose requirement associated with invitee status:

An invitation may be inferred when there is a common interest or mutual advantage, a license when the object is the mere pleasure or benefit of the person using it. “To come under an implied invitation, as distinguished from a mere license, the visitor must come for a purpose connected with the business with which the occupant of the premises is engaged, or which he permits to be carried on there. There must be some mutuality of interest in the subject to which the visitor’s business relates, although the particular business which is the object of the visit may not be for the benefit of the occupant.

“The distinction between a visitor who is a mere licensee and one who is on the premises by invitation turns largely on the nature of the business that brings him there, rather than on the words or acts of the owner which precede his coming----” [3 Cooley, Torts (4th ed), § 440, pp 193-194 (emphasis added).]

[9]

Cooley’s acknowledgment that an invitee’s status is dependent upon a visit associated with a “commercial purpose” and “mutuality of interest” concerning the reason for the visit demonstrate the extent to which Michigan has historically, if not uniformly, recognized a commercial business purpose as a precondition for establishing invitee status.

Despite the divergence of our cases concerning the elements necessary to confer invitee status, one thing has been consistent: to our knowledge, this Court has never squarely addressed the question whether a mere “public invitee” such as a churchgoer is entitled to invitee status. While plaintiff suggests that our cases have already recognized invitee liability for churches, a careful review of these cases shows that this is a less than accurate analysis. To the contrary, Michigan cases that have conferred invitee status upon an individual injured on church premises reveals that each has involved a plaintiff who was on the church premises for a commercial business purpose. For example, in Bruce v Central Methodist Episcopal Church, 147 Mich 230; 110 NW 951 (1907), the plaintiff was allowed to recover from the defendant church for injuries he sustained while painting the church building. The plaintiff was working for a contractor, painting the ceiling of the church when the scaffolding on which he was standing broke.

Almost fifty years later, a defendant church was held liable in Manning v Bishop of Marquette, 345 Mich 130; 76 NW2d 75 (1956). In Manning, the plaintiff fell and was injured on church property as she was leaving a bingo game. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs claim was barred because she was at the church for an illegal purpose and should not use her illegal conduct as a foundation for her claim that she was on the premises as an invitee. Id. at 137. The Court refused to entertain any defenses based on illegality or charitable immunity and held that the plaintiff was an invitee.

Later, in Kendzorek v Guardian Angel Catholic Parish, 178 Mich App 562; 444 NW2d 213 (1989), overruled on other grounds in Orel v Uni-Rak Sales Co, 454 Mich 564; 563 NW2d 241 (1997), a child was injured on a swing at a carnival held on the church grounds. The carnival was a church fund-raiser. The child’s mother brought suit against the church. The Court of Appeals held that, at the time the child was injured, she was an invitee.

As these cases illustrate, invitee status has traditionally been conferred in our cases only on persons injured on church premises who were there for a commercial purpose.

C. THE RESTATEMENT

We begin by noting that a large number of jurisdictions have adopted § 332 of the Restatement:

(1) An invitee is either a public invitee or a business visitor.

(2) A public invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.

(3) A business visitor is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land.

Subsection (2) of § 332 of the Restatement creates an invitee status that does not depend on a commercial purpose. In this case, the Court of Appeals interpreted Preston, supra, as having implicitly adopted the Restatement definition of “public invitee.” We certainly agree that Preston relied on § 332 of the Restatement. However, the issue whether to adopt the Restatement definition of “public invitee” was not before this Court in Preston.

In Preston, the plaintiffs were social guests who had been invited to the defendant’s cottage for the weekend. In order to access the cottage, the plaintiffs entered a lift. The lift consisted of a car that was controlled by cable and an electric winch. After the plaintiffs entered the lift, a shaft broke and the car crashed, injuring the plaintiffs. Id. at 445. The plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeals erroneously determined that the plaintiffs were invitees merely because they had been “invited” onto the premises. That Court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial. Id. This Court held that the Court of Appeals committed error requiring reversal because the trial judge properly instructed the jury on the duty owed by a host to his social guests, licensees. Id. at 454. As stated by the trial judge, a host has no duty to reconstruct his premises or make his home more convenient or more safe for those accepting his hospitality. The guest assumes the ordinary risks that come with the premises. Id. at 446.

There was no contention in Preston that the plaintiffs were “public invitees,” because that case involved only the duty owed to social guests. Thus, the issue whether to adopt the Restatement definition of “public invitee” was not before this Court in Preston and there is room for doubt regarding whether Preston can properly be regarded as binding precedent on this point. However, to the extent Preston purported to adopt the Restatement definition, and this could be properly considered a binding holding, we overrule Preston. Moreover, as explained below, we decline to adopt § 332 of the Restatement here.

d. business purpose as a precondition of invitee status

Given the divergence of our cases on what circumstances create invitee status, we must provide some form of reconciliation in this case. In harmonizing our cases, we conclude that the imposition of additional expense and effort by the landowner, requiring the landowner to inspect the premises and make them safe for visitors, must be directly tied to the owner’s commercial business interests. It is the owner’s desire to foster a commercial advantage by inviting persons to visit the premises that justifies imposition of a higher duty. In short, we conclude that the prospect of pecuniary gain is a sort of quid pro quo for the higher duty of care owed to invitees. Thus, we hold that the owner’s reason for inviting persons onto the premises is the primary consideration when determining the visitor’s status: In order to establish invitee status, a plaintiff must show that the premises were held open for a commercial purpose.

With regard to church visitors, we agree with the court in McNulty v Hurley, 97 So 2d 185 (Fla, 1957), that such persons are licensees.¹⁰ In McNulty, a churchgoer was injured when, as she was leaving the church, she was pushed to the ground by a crowd of people. The lower court granted the defendant church’s motion to dismiss on grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action. The defendant contended that one entering church premises for the purpose of attending religious services is a mere licensee. Thus, the only duty of the church was to refrain from wanton negligence or wilful misconduct and to refrain from intentionally exposing her to danger. Id. át 187. The plaintiff, on the other hand, argued that she was on the church premises by invitation and that most religions urge members and others to enter their churches and hold their doors open as a standing invitation. Id. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed, stating:

[A]n invitation to enter and worship, whether it be either express or implied, does not constitute one who accepts the invitation an invitee in the legal sense. In order for such relationship to arise the person entering onto the premises, i.e. the invitee, must have done so for purposes which would have benefited the owner or occupant of the premises, i.e. the invitor, or have been of mutual benefit to the invitee and the invitor. And as we view it this benefit must be of a material or commercial rather than of a spiritual, religious, or social nature. [Id. at 188.]

Thus, as we do, the McNulty court considered a business purpose or a business or commercial benefit to the landowner as a necessary requirement in order for a visitor to be deemed an invitee. The McNulty court rejected the argument that church members confer a benefit to the church by supporting the church, stating:

It cannot be successfully or logically argued that a person enters a place of worship, call it by any name, and participates in worship and prayer to the God or Supreme Being of his choice for the benefit of the body or organization which owns the church, the religious or lay readers who conduct the services, or the God or Supreme Being whom he worships and asks for guidance, help or forgiveness. One of the concepts of all religious beliefs known to us is that participation in religious activities is for the benefit of the mortals who participate therein. [Id,.]

The McNulty court also addressed the issue whether financial contributions at a religious service provided a sufficient basis for invitee status. We find this analysis instructive because the plaintiff in the case at bar similarly alleges that on prior visits to the church she made financial contributions to the church to such an extent that she should be considered an invitee. The McNulty court stated:

Nor would it matter if the plaintiff had alleged that she made a contribution when the collection plate was passed, for this would not have changed her status. ... It seems clear to us . . . that one who attends a religious edifice for the purpose of attending a religious service, as did the plaintiff in this case, does so “for his own convenience, pleasure or benefit” and is at best a licensee. [Id. at 188-189.]

We agree that whether the plaintiff in the instant case previously gave an offering to the church has no bearing on whether she was a licensee or an invitee. Absent a showing that the church’s invitation to attend its services was for an essential commercial purpose, Ms. Moeller should be considered a licensee and not an invitee. A person who attends church as a guest enjoys the “unrecompensed hospitality” provided by the church in the same way that a person entering the home of a friend would. Hambright v First Baptist Church, 638 So 2d 865, 868 (Ala, 1994). We conclude that church visitors who are attending church for religious worship are more like social guests (licensees) than business visitors (invitees).¹¹

w

conclusion

We recognize that a majority of jurisdictions considering the issue have adopted the public invitee definition set forth in § 332 of the Restatement. However, in exercising our common-law authority, our role is not simply to “count heads” but to determine which common-law rules best serve the interests of Michigan citizens. We believe that Michigan is better served by recognizing that invitee status must be founded on a commercial purpose for visiting the owner’s premises.

For the above stated reasons, we hold that persons on church premises for other than commercial purposes are licensees and not invitees. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. We remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the other issues raised by plaintiff in her appeal which were not resolved by the Court of Appeals in light of its analysis of the present issue.

Weaver, C.J., and Taylor, Corrigan, and Markman, JJ., concurred with Young, J.

1 Violet Moeller is now deceased. Jill Stitt, decedent’s personal representative has been substituted as the named plaintiff. For purposes of this opinion, Ms. Moeller will be referred to as the plaintiff.

2 Section 332 of the Restatement provides:

(1) An invitee is either a public invitee or a business visitor.

(2) A public invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public.

(3) A business visitor is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land.

3 The trial court gave the following instructions:

The possessor of land or premises is liable for physical harm caused to the licensee by a condition on the premises if, but only if, (A) the possessor knew or should’ve known of the condition, and should have realized that it involved an unreasonable risk of harm to the licensee, and should have expected that she would not discover or realize the danger and (B) the possessor failed to exercise reasonable care to make the conditions safe or to warn the licensee of the condition and the risk involved, and (C) the licensee did not know or have reason to know of the condition and risk involved.

4 229 Mich App 504; 582 NW2d 849 (1998).

5 For example, in Diefenbach, the plaintiff was injured when he entered the defendant’s store. He alleged he entered the store for the purpose of purchasing groceries and denied defendant’s contentions that he entered the store to participate in a rat hunt that was going on at the time. The Court noted that, although plaintiff actually bought no groceries, if he came to the store for a business purpose he would undoubtedly be an invitee.

6 In Butler, the Court of Appeals defined invitees as persons who enter the premises at the owner’s express or implied invitation to conduct business concerning the owner. Correlatively, in Bradford, the Court of Appeals defined licensee as a person who, other than for a business purpose, enters another’s land with the express or implied permission of the owner or person in control of the property.

7 In Polston, this Court held that members of the public who use a sidewalk with the defendant’s knowledge, permission, and acquiescence were not trespassers but licensees. The Polston Court provided that the rule for licensees is different when the licensee is using a path that has been openly and notoriously held out to the public for use. In such cases, the Court held that the defendant owed a greater duty of ordinary care.

We note that Polston and other cases decided about that time seem to impose a special heightened duty for persons injured on sidewalks, bridges, and roadways held open to the public. Hence, where such persons would ordinarily be considered licensees, they were nonetheless entitled to a duty of ordinary care. See, e.g., Brown v Michigan R Co, 202 Mich 280; 168 NW 419 (1918); Morrison v Carpenter, 179 Mich 207; 146 NW 106 (1914).

8 In Hargreaves, this Court stated that a landowner owes a duty of care when an injured party has been induced to come by personal invitation or employment or by resorting there as a place of business or “of general resort held open” to customers or others whose lawful occasion may lead them to come visit. Id. at 5. Interestingly, Hargreaves is cited in 95 ALR2d 992, § 4, p 1014 as supporting a commercial puipose requirement.

9 Given that Preston is purported to have adopted the Restatement “public invitee” definition, which does not require a business purpose, we find it difficult to reconcile Preston’s citation to Cooley, which expressly requires a business purpose, as an accurate statement of Michigan law. Id. at 448, 450.

10 The Florida Supreme Court has since moved away from McNulty and has adopted § 332 of the Restatement. See Post v Lunney, 261 So 2d 146 (Fla, 1972). However, we continue to find McNulty’s reasoning persuasive.

11 The solicitation of entirely voluntary donations by a nonprofit organization is plainly not a commercial activity. Accordingly, a church providing an opportunity for voluntary donations during a religious service that are in no way required to attend the service, i.e., passing a collection plate, does not transform one who attends the church service and elects to make a donation from a licensee into an invitee. Indeed, we imagine that many religious individuals would find it offensive to have their voluntary donations to a church regarded as part of a business or commercial transaction, rather than as a gift intended to aid in various religious good works.