Renee Freeman v. Kimberly Freeman and Brandon Freeman

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/28/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2091133 Renee Freeman v. Kimberly Freeman and Brandon Freeman Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court (CV-09-902105) MOORE, J u d g e . Renee Freeman a p p e a l s f r o m a summary Court the Jefferson Circuit court") i n favor of her s o n , B r a n d o n Freeman, a n d h i s w i f e , K i m b e r l y Freeman, on Renee's c l a i m o f n e g l i g e n c e . ("the t r i a l judgment e n t e r e d by We a f f i r m . 2091133 Facts On court and P r o c e d u r a l June 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , Renee against negligence. Brandon and f i l e d a complaint Kimberly, I n her complaint, 1 History Renee asserting asserted been i n j u r e d when a wooden s w i n g t h a t she was B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y ' s yard i n the collapsed. a trial claim that of she h a d sitting Brandon and in in Kimberly f i l e d an answer on A u g u s t 14, 2009. On May a summary depositions Kimberly. 11, 2010, B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y judgment, attaching o f Renee, The Renee's testimony following facts. thereto f i l e d a motion f o r excerpts from the Brandon, and revealed the i n her d e p o s i t i o n that she h u s b a n d Rodney, i n those Renee t e s t i f i e d depositions has two c h i l d r e n , B r a n d o n and Amber R i z z o . B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y who i s married stated have two c h i l d r e n , Cade and L e x i . t o Ryan R i z z o , B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y ' s that Amber, a l s o has a s o n , C o l b y . s t a t e d t h a t she l i v e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y for approximately She f o u r and a h a l f m i l e s Renee from home, w h i c h t h e y have been l i v i n g i n e i g h t y e a r s , and t h a t she v i s i t s t h e i r h o u s e R e n e e ' s h u s b a n d , Rodney Freeman, h a d j o i n e d i n t h e f i l i n g o f t h e c o m p l a i n t as a p l a i n t i f f , a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m o f l o s s o f consortium. The t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e d Rodney as a p l a i n t i f f on M a r c h 22, 2010. 1 2 2091133 a t l e a s t once a month and s o m e t i m e s more. when B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y p u r c h a s e d A c c o r d i n g t o Renee, the house, the swing was already there. Renee t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on M a r c h 8, 2009, she was r e t u r n i n g Cade t o B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y ' s night with her. According w a n t e d i c e cream. L e x i and to Renee, Cade had L e x i went t o a s t o r e and h o u s e , Amber and Ryan and Brandon and Kimberly's and L e x i and so she put Renee, she, Amber, C o l b y , and Lexi swing seemed fine when they the were a l l sat and the c h i l d r e n were i n i c e cream on away According sitting s w i n g w h i l e t h e b o y s were t h r o w i n g a f o o t b a l l . She the Cade, Kimberly's b e c a u s e she had n o t b o u g h t enough f o r a l l o f them. to chicken returned to some n e i g h b o r h o o d yard, and purchased i c e cream f o r B r a n d o n , K i m b e r l y , Renee s t a t e d t h a t when she the Kimberly's she r e t u r n e d w i t h L e x i and t h e f o o d t o B r a n d o n and house. spent hungry was W h i l e Cade s t a y e d a t B r a n d o n and h o u s e , Renee and for h o u s e a f t e r he on the stated that i t and that, a l t h o u g h t h e r e had b e e n n o t h i n g p r e v e n t i n g h e r f r o m l o o k i n g a t t h e s w i n g b e f o r e she s a t on i t , she had n o t c h e c k e d to see i f i t was o p e r a b l e and she had n o t t h o u g h t n e c e s s a r y f o r h e r t o do s o . She 3 the swing t h a t i t was s t a t e d t h a t , b a s e d on h e r use 2091133 and observation of the swing t h o u g h t i t was f i n e t o s i t on. been s i t t i n g on previous According occasions, she t o Renee, t h e y h a d on t h e s w i n g f o r maybe 10 m i n u t e s and t h e n e x t t h i n g she remembers was t h a t she woke up on t h e g r o u n d . Renee s t a t e d t h a t she h a d s a t on t h e s w i n g maybe 10 o r 20 times before she was i n j u r e d and t h a t s a t on t h e s w i n g b e f o r e o f 2008. with the accident the l a s t t i m e she h a d was p r o b a b l y i n t h e f a l l She s t a t e d t h a t she h a d n e v e r n o t i c e d a n y t h i n g t h e s w i n g when she h a d s a t on i t i n t h e p a s t , w o u l d n o t h a v e s a t on t h e s w i n g anything wrong with i t , and that she there was a t i t from the i f she h a d s e e n that, looking o u t s i d e , t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e r e was a n y t h i n g with the swing. Brandon wrong wrong Renee t e s t i f i e d t h a t she d i d n o t t h i n k o r K i m b e r l y knew t h e r e was anything wrong w i t h that the s w i n g and t h a t , i f B r a n d o n h a d known t h e r e was s o m e t h i n g wrong w i t h t h e s w i n g , he w o u l d n o t have a l l o w e d her or h i s c h i l d r e n t o s i t on i t . negligence occurred was She s t a t e d t h a t the only that had t h a t Brandon d i d not check t h e swing t o see i f t h e r e was a n y t h i n g wrong w i t h i t . According t o Renee, B r a n d o n t o l d h e r t h e s w i n g j u s t c r u m b l e d when he went t o t a k e i t down and t h r o w i t away. 4 2091133 Kimberly testified wooden s i d e w a l k it i n her deposition that there is a i n t h e i r b a c k y a r d t h a t i s o l d and r o t t e n , t h a t n e e d s t o be r e p l a c e d o r t o r n down, a n d t h a t i t i s u n s a f e . Rodney t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d h e l p e d r e p l a c e a wooden d e c k t h a t was i n B r a n d o n a n d K i m b e r l y ' s b a c k y a r d a n d t h a t t h e d e c k h a d been rotten. Rodney t e s t i f i e d that, unlike the deck, c o u l d n o t s e e t h a t t h e s w i n g was r o t t e n , t h a t i t l o o k e d fine, t h a t he h a d n e v e r h a d any c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e s w i n g b e f o r e accident, swing. was a n d t h a t he h a d n e v e r s e e n a n y t h i n g you the wrong w i t h t h e K i m b e r l y s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t know t h a t t h e s w i n g rotten but that, looking back wooden d e c k a n d t h e wooden s i d e w a l k , on t h e c o n d i t i o n of the "maybe [ t h e y ] s h o u l d have known" t h a t t h e s w i n g was r o t t e n . She s t a t e d t h a t she h a d h a d no i n d i c a t i o n and that t h e s w i n g was u n s a f e b e f o r e the accident t h a t s h e h a d a l l o w e d h e r c h i l d r e n t o p l a y on t h e s w i n g b u t that, i f s h e h a d t h o u g h t i t was u n s a f e , she w o u l d n o t h a v e . Brandon testified i n h i s deposition that "hindsight l o o k i n g b a c k , y e s , I w o u l d s a y t h a t I s h o u l d have r e p l a c e d t h e s w i n g , " b e c a u s e , he s a i d , he h a d r e p l a c e d t h e d e c k , w h i c h was rotten, also and a p l a y h o u s e t h a t s t i l l rotten. He stated that he 5 stood felt i n t h e b a c k y a r d was like he should have 2091133 replaced the swing. He a l s o s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t he a n d h i s family "always" s a t i n the swing. Brandon t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t the time of the a c c i d e n t , he h e a r d t h e wood when i t s n a p p e d and t h e s w i n g came down. He s t a t e d t h a t , up u n t i l he t o r e t h e s w i n g down, he h a d h a d no k n o w l e d g e t h a t wrong with the swing and t h a t he w o u l d there was n o t have anything allowed a n y b o d y t o u s e t h e s w i n g i f he h a d known t h a t i t was b a d . Renee filed an opposition t o Brandon summary-judgment m o t i o n on J u n e 4, 2 0 1 0 . the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d and 2 and Kimberly's On J u n e 14, 2010, a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f B r a n d o n K i m b e r l y ; t h a t judgment s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t part: "The f a c t s i n t h i s p r e m i s e s - l i a b i l i t y a c t i o n a r e m o s t l y u n d i s p u t e d . Renee Freeman i s t h e m o t h e r o f B r a n d o n Freeman a n d t h e m o t h e r - i n - l a w o f K i m b e r l y Freeman. While v i s i t i n g [Brandon and K i m b e r l y ' s ] home, she s u s t a i n e d i n j u r i e s when a s w i n g on w h i c h she was s i t t i n g c o l l a p s e d . The s w i n g was l o c a t e d i n t h e b a c k y a r d a n d she h a d b e e n s i t t i n g i n i t f o r a s h o r t p e r i o d o f t i m e when i t c o l l a p s e d . She h a d s a t i n t h e s w i n g on many o t h e r o c c a s i o n s w h i l e v i s i t i n g [ B r a n d o n a n d K i m b e r l y ' s ] home. "The f i r s t i s s u e t o be d e t e r m i n e d i s w h e t h e r [ R e n e e ] was an i n v i t e e as c l a i m e d b y h e r o r a l i c e n s e e as c l a i m e d b y [ B r a n d o n a n d K i m b e r l y ] . She was returning her grandchildren, [Brandon and Kimberly's] children, to their home a f t e r an We Renee's 2 note that there opposition. were no e v i d e n t i a r y 6 attachments t o 2091133 o v e r n i g h t v i s i t w i t h h e r . She had p r e v i o u s l y gone t o W a l - M a r t t o g e t i c e cream f o r h e r g r a n d c h i l d r e n and o t h e r f a m i l y members. When she r e t u r n e d she s a t i n t h e s w i n g and a s h o r t t i m e l a t e r i t c o l l a p s e d . I n v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant, and r e s o l v i n g a l l r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t s i n h e r f a v o r , t h e C o u r t c o n s i d e r s Renee was an i n v i t e e r a t h e r t h a n a l i c e n s e e . An i n v i t o r ' s d u t y t o an i n v i t e e i s t o keep h i s p r e m i s e s i n a r e a s o n a b l y s a f e c o n d i t i o n , and, i f t h e p r e m i s e s a r e u n s a f e , t o warn o f h i d d e n d e f e c t s and d a n g e r s t h a t a r e known t o him, b u t a r e unknown o r h i d d e n t o t h e i n v i t e e . Ex p a r t e K r a a t z , 775 So. 2d 801 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . A p r e m i s e s owner a l s o has no d u t y t o warn t h e i n v i t e e o f open and obvious defects i n the premises, which the i n v i t e e i s aware o f o r s h o u l d be aware o f t h r o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e o f r e a s o n a b l e c a r e . The e n t i r e b a s i s o f an invitor's liability r e s t upon h i s superior knowledge o f the danger w h i c h causes the i n v i t e e ' s i n j u r i e s . I f t h a t s u p e r i o r knowledge i s l a c k i n g , the i n v i t o r c a n n o t be h e l d l i a b l e . H a r d i n g v. Pierce H a r d y R e a l E s t a t e , 628 So. 2d 461 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . The u n d i s p u t e d e v i d e n c e i n t h i s case i s t h a t n e i t h e r [ R e n e e ] n o r [ B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y ] , p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t , had k n o w l e d g e o f t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t i v e swing. I n f a c t , i n her d e p o s i t i o n testimony, [Renee] s t a t e d t h a t she n e v e r n o t i c e d a n y t h i n g wrong w i t h t h e s w i n g and w o u l d n o t have s a t i n i t had she known o t h e r w i s e . She a l s o s t a t e d t h a t she d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t e i t h e r [ B r a n d o n o r K i m b e r l y ] knew t h a t a n y t h i n g was wrong w i t h the swing p r i o r t o the accident. [ B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y ] a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t t h e y were unaware o f a n y t h i n g being wrong w i t h t h e s w i n g . " [ R e n e e ' s ] c l a i m i s b a s e d upon t h e t h e o r y t h a t b e c a u s e [ B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y ' s ] wooden d e c k had become r o t t e d and was r e p l a c e d and a p l a y h o u s e and a s i d e w a l k were a l s o i n p o o r c o n d i t i o n t h a t i t must naturally follow that [Brandon and Kimberly] r e a s o n a b l y knew t h a t t h e s w i n g was a l s o d e f e c t i v e . However, t h e r e was no t e s t i m o n y by any of the 7 2091133 parties that prior t o t h e a c c i d e n t anyone had knowledge o f the d e f e c t i v e c o n d i t i o n o f the swing. Even i f t h e r e were d e f e c t s a t o t h e r l o c a t i o n s on t h e premises the Court cannot speculate that this c o n s t i t u t e s n o t i c e of a hidden d e f e c t i n the swing. To t h e c o n t r a r y , t h e e v i d e n c e i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t , p r i o r t o t h e a c c i d e n t none o f t h e p a r t i e s h a d n o t i c e of a d e f e c t t o the swing. Without n o t i c e [Brandon and K i m b e r l y ] c a n n o t be l i a b l e t o [ R e n e e ] . " T h e r e f o r e , upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e p l e a d i n g s , i n c l u d i n g t h e m o t i o n and a t t a c h m e n t s t h e r e t o and o p p o s i t i o n o f [ R e n e e ] and a r g u m e n t s o f c o u n s e l t h e C o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e issue of material fact and [Brandon and Kimberly] are e n t i t l e d t o a J u d g m e n t as a M a t t e r o f Law." On J u n e 28, 6 0 ( b ) , A l a . R. court's 2010, Renee f i l e d C i v . P., motion judgment. Renee's m o t i o n what she to alter s t y l e d as a R u l e o r amend t h e B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y f i l e d on J u l y 9, 2010. On J u l y trial a response 13, 2010, the to trial c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g Renee's m o t i o n . Renee f i l e d a notice of appeal on A u g u s t 6, 2010; that t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t court transferred the p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code appeal to this court, 1975. B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y f i l e d a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l or to strike i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l , a s s e r t i n g t h a t Renee's n o t i c e o f a p p e a l was n o t f i l e d w i t h i n 42 d a y s " o f t h e d a t e of the e n t r y o f the judgment or o r d e r a p p e a l e d f r o m , " p u r s u a n t t o Rule 4, A l a . R. App. P., and t h a t Renee's f i l i n g 8 of a Rule 2091133 60(b) motion d i d not t o l l the time f o r taking an a p p e a l , c i t i n g K e i t h v. Moone, 771 So. 2d 1014, 1017 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997). B r a n d o n a n d K i m b e r l y a r g u e t h a t , as a r e s u l t , a l t h o u g h Renee h a s t i m e l y a p p e a l e d t h e t r i a l court's order denying her Rule t o preserve the r i g h t to 60(b) m o t i o n , she h a s f a i l e d a p p e a l t h e u n d e r l y i n g judgment. "The motion law i s w e l l - s e t t l e d i s not c o n t r o l l i n g . ' We disagree. that ' t h e nomenclature R e b e l O i l Company v . P i k e , So. 2d 529, 531 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . to the r e l i e f So. 2d 1070, 1070 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 2 ) . her postjudgment R u l e 60(b) t o a l t e r o r amend." 473 A t r i a l c o u r t may l o o k sought w i t h i n the motion." Renee d e n o m i n a t e d of a P o s t v. D u f f y , 603 I n the present case, m o t i o n as a " m o t i o n under I n t h a t m o t i o n , she a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e r e r e m a i n e d an i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t t h a t s h o u l d be d e c i d e d b y a j u r y a n d , t h u s , t h a t t h e summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d by t h e t r i a l in c o u r t was i n a p p r o p r i a t e . t h e body o f t h e m o t i o n , therefore, Renee c l e a r l y that asserted she was s e e k i n g r e l i e f f r o m t h e j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 9 ( e ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h a l l o w s a t r i a l court to a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e a judgment, r a t h e r than p u r s u a n t t o Rule 6 0 ( b ) . Landmark C h e v r o l e t , See J e n k i n s v . I n c . , 575 So. 2d 1157, 1159 9 (Ala. Civ. 2091133 App. 1991). Rule 59(e) suspends We t h e r e f o r e c o n c l u d e t h a t Renee's m o t i o n was m o t i o n ; because the running appeal, see R u l e Renee's appeal timely. We of 4(a)(3), from the the the filing time A l a . R. trial for App. of a Rule filing P., we a 59 a motion notice conclude of that c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t t h e r e f o r e deny B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y ' s m o t i o n was to d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l o r t o s t r i k e t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on a p p e a l . Standard of Review " ' " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a summary j u d g m e n t i s de novo. W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 886 So. 2d 72, 74 (Ala. 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f review as the trial court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e movant has made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s and t h a t t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , Ala. R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d of A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2d 949, 952-53 ( A l a . 2004) . I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. W i l s o n v. Brown, 496 So. 2d 756, 758 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . Once t h e movant makes a prima facie showing that t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t , the burden t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o p r o d u c e ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t . B a s s v. S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 53 8 So. 2d 794, 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 12-21-12. ' [ S ] u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i s e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t 10 2091133 fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . ' West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r . Co. o f F l a . , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . " ' " P r i n c e v. P o o l e , 935 So. 2d 431, 442 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g Dow v. A l a b a m a D e m o c r a t i c P a r t y , 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) ) . " Gooden v. C i t y o f T a l l a d e g a , 966 So. 2d 232, 235 ( A l a . 2007). Discussion On appeal, Renee argues that the trial court e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f B r a n d o n and She asserts Renee was court that trial court properly determining to that the properly the apply question s w i n g was the determined whether d e f e c t i v e was r e s p o n s e , B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y a l i c e n s e e r a t h e r t h a n an relevant Brandon not in dispute. a r g u e t h a t Renee was, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of p e r s o n s the land are trespasser, invitee I n o r d e r t o be in In in fact, invitee. 11 trial Kimberly " ' [ T ] h e d u t y owed by t h e l a n d o w n e r t o a p e r s o n i n j u r e d on h i s p r e m i s e s b e c a u s e o f a c o n d i t i o n on t h e l a n d i s d e p e n d e n t upon t h e s t a t u s o f t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e l a n d . ' C h r i s t i a n v. K e n n e t h C h a n d l e r C o n s t r . Co., 658 So. 2d 408, 410 (Ala. 1995). "'"The t h r e e coming onto l i c e n s e e , and that authority and in Kimberly. an i n v i t e e r a t h e r t h a n a l i c e n s e e b u t t h a t t h e failed knew t h a t the erred 2091133 c o n s i d e r e d an i n v i t e e , t h e p l a i n t i f f must have b e e n on t h e p r e m i s e s f o r some p u r p o s e that m a t e r i a l l y or commercially b e n e f i t e d t h e owner o r o c c u p i e r o f t h e p r e m i s e s . " ' "Ex p a r t e M o u n t a i n Top I n d o o r F l e a M a r k e t , I n c . , 699 So. 2d 158, 161 ( A l a . 1997) ( q u o t i n g S i s k v. H e i l Co. , 639 So. 2d 1 3 6 3 , 1365 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . 'The d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n a v i s i t o r who i s a l i c e n s e e a n d one who i s an i n v i t e e t u r n s l a r g e l y on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e v i s i t w h i c h b r i n g s t h e v i s i t o r on t h e p r e m i s e s r a t h e r t h a n t h e a c t s o f t h e owner w h i c h p r e c e d e s t h e v i s i t o r ' s c o m i n g . ' N e l s o n v . G a t l i n , 288 A l a . 1 5 1 , 154, 258 So. 2d 730, 733 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s b y S t a n d i f e r v . P a t e , 291 A l a . 434, 436, 282 So. 2d 2 6 1 , 263 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . 'One who e n t e r s t h e l a n d o f another, w i t h t h e landowner's consent, t o bestow some m a t e r i a l or commercial benefit upon t h e l a n d o w n e r i s deemed an i n v i t e e o f t h e l a n d o w n e r . ' D a v i d s o n v. H i g h l a n d s U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , 67 3 So. 2d 765, 767 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995) . See a l s o R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s § 332 ( 1 9 6 5 ) : "'(1) An i n v i t e e i s e i t h e r i n v i t e e or a business v i s i t o r . a public "'(2) A p u b l i c i n v i t e e i s a p e r s o n who i s i n v i t e d t o e n t e r o r r e m a i n on l a n d as a member o f t h e p u b l i c f o r a p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h t h e l a n d i s h e l d open t o t h e p u b l i c . "'(3) A business v i s i t o r i s a person who i s i n v i t e d t o e n t e r o r r e m a i n on l a n d for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings of the possessor of the land.' "'On t h e o t h e r h a n d , a p e r s o n who e n t e r s t h e l a n d o f a n o t h e r w i t h t h e l a n d o w n e r ' s c o n s e n t o r as the landowner's guest, but without a business purpose, holds the l e g a l status of a l i c e n s e e . ' D a v i d s o n v. H i g h l a n d s U n i t e d M e t h o d i s t C h u r c h , 67 3 12 2091133 So. 2d a t 767. See a l s o R e s t a t e m e n t (Second) o f T o r t s § 330 (1965) ( s t a t i n g t h a t '[a] l i c e n s e e i s a p e r s o n who i s p r i v i l e g e d t o e n t e r o r r e m a i n on l a n d o n l y by v i r t u e o f t h e p o s s e s s o r ' s consent')." Edwards v. Civ. App. Intergraph Servs. Co., 4 So. 3d 495, 500-01 (Ala. 2008). I n W a l k e r v. Mitchell, 715 So. 2d 791 (Ala. Civ. 1 9 9 7 ) , t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d App. i n favor of the M i t c h e l l s on W a l k e r ' s p r e m i s e s - l i a b i l i t y c l a i m s . So. In 2d at 792. daughter, had Mitchells' that h o u s e and agreed case, Walker, to pick up to t r a n s p o r t her to a wedding i n Kentucky. the Mrs. Mitchells' Mitchell i n a rented I d . a t 792-93. Id. at i n the M i t c h e l l s ' 793. testimony, This court indicating M i t c h e l l s ' p r e m i s e s was her and her that y a r d and noted her fell, that t o p i c k up Mrs. While Walker herself. deposition M i t c h e l l and onto and licensee on t h a t W a l k e r was the Mitchells' t h u s an premises. Mitchell's request, invitee rather Id. This d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d 13 the transport tended "to i n d i c a t e a purpose t h a t ' m a t e r i a l l y b e n e f i t e d ' Mitchell" was stepped injuring f o r coming l u g g a g e t o K e n t u c k y a t Mrs. the automobile Walker's purpose adult at t r a n s p o r t i n g h e r m o t h e r ' s b a g s t o t h e a u t o m o b i l e , she i n a hole 715 by Mrs. than a court Walker, 2091133 the question w h e t h e r W a l k e r was a l i c e n s e e , as a r g u e d b y t h e M i t c h e l l s , o r an i n v i t e e c o u l d n o t be r e s o l v e d i n f a v o r o f t h e M i t c h e l l s a t t h e summary-judgment s t a g e . I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , Renee a s s e r t s b a b y s a t f o r Cade o v e r n i g h t and Id. t h a t b e c a u s e she h a d and had t a k e n L e x i t o g e t c h i c k e n i c e cream t o b r i n g b a c k t o t h e f a m i l y , she was an i n v i t e e . We d i s a g r e e . that the sole In Walker, Walker presented evidence i n d i c a t i n g purpose of Walker's visit to the M i t c h e l l s ' p r e m i s e s was t o p i c k up M r s . M i t c h e l l a n d t o t r a n s p o r t h e r t o Kentucky a t Mrs. M i t c h e l l ' s request. 715 So. 2d a t 793. I n the p r e s e n t case, t h e e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f and i n o p p o s i t i o n to t h e summary-judgment favorable t o Renee, overnight and then home. The v i s i t motion, indicates returned viewed that in a Renee him t o Brandon had light most kept Cade and K i m b e r l y ' s t o r e t u r n Cade was c o m p l e t e d once Renee left B r a n d o n a n d K i m b e r l y ' s home, t h i s t i m e w i t h L e x i , t o p i c k up food. In other words, the material benefit bestowed upon B r a n d o n a n d K i m b e r l y , i f any, b y v i r t u e o f Renee's b a b y s i t t i n g Cade f o r a night was no l o n g e r the underlying purpose f o r w h i c h she l a s t r e t u r n e d t o B r a n d o n a n d K i m b e r l y ' s h o u s e the accident occurred. 14 before 2091133 Thus, we must d e c i d e purchase food w h e t h e r Renee's t r i p f o r Cade a n d L e x i w o u l d with Lexi to s u f f i c e to present q u e s t i o n o f f a c t as t o w h e t h e r t h e p u r p o s e o f Renee's visit c o n f e r r e d a m a t e r i a l b e n e f i t on B r a n d o n a n d K i m b e r l y s u c h Renee was believe an that invitee i t would. she h a d p u r c h a s e d Unlike request. that than a licensee. Renee s t a t e d do i n her deposition however, she she h a d done d i d not A l s o u n l i k e i n Walker, her deposition that, present so a t Brandon not that and evidence Kimberly's Renee was n o t i n j u r e d i n t h e course of f u l f i l l i n g her a s s e r t e d purpose. in We that i c e c r e a m f o r Cade, B r a n d o n , a n d K i m b e r l y . i n Walker, indicating rather a because a R a t h e r , she s t a t e d number of neighborhood c h i l d r e n were p r e s e n t , t h e r e was n o t enough f o o d f o r e v e r y o n e and t h a t t h e f o o d was p u t away. Renee t h e n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a social i n Brandon visit backyard. in support with her family o f and i n o p p o s i t i o n motion, present evidence i n d i c a t i n g that than licensee. social Kimberly's B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l summary-judgment a and visitor who To we conclude so h o l d brought t o Brandon 15 she was would food that and Renee court Kimberly's d i d not an i n v i t e e rather p o t e n t i a l l y allow or g i f t s t o t h e home any of 2091133 friends or f a m i l y achieve t h e s t a t u s o f an i n v i t e e . contravention members without of the established being (concluding t o do s o t o Such a h o l d i n g w o u l d be i n law i n t h i s Morgan v . K i r k p a t r i c k , 276 A l a . 7, (1963) asked 9, state. See 158 So. 2d 650, 652 that s o c i a l guests are l i c e n s e e s ) . Thus, we c o n c l u d e t h a t Renee was p r o p e r l y a l i c e n s e e on B r a n d o n a n d Kimberly's property. We n o t e t h a t t h e d u t y owed t o a l i c e n s e e i s n o t as g r e a t as that owed t o an i n v i t e e . determined that the Although resolution of the court whether i n Walker Walker was a l i c e n s e e o r an i n v i t e e was n o t p r o p e r l y r e s o l v e d b y a summary j u d g m e n t , t h i s c o u r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t i t "may nevertheless a f f i r m t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n [ t h e M i t c h e l l s ' ] f a v o r i f the M i t c h e l l s met t h e i r b u r d e n o f d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h e a b s e n c e o f any genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t t h a t they discharged t h e i r duty t o W a l k e r e v e n a s s u m i n g h e r s t a t u s t o be t h a t o f an i n v i t e e . " I d . a t 793-94. will review Out o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , we the t r i a l court's summary j u d g m e n t v i e w i n g Renee as an i n v i t e e . In Walker, Mitchells this court determined h a d made no a f f i r m a t i v e p r i m a 16 that, because the f a c i e showing that 2091133 t h e y were n o t aware o f t h e h o l e or t h a t the h o l e was an open and o b v i o u s h a z a r d o f w h i c h W a l k e r s h o u l d have known, t h e y failed t o show t h a t t h e r e was no i s s u e of m a t e r i a l fact had with r e g a r d t o w h e t h e r t h e y v i o l a t e d a d u t y t o W a l k e r t o keep t h e i r premises i n a reasonably safe c o n d i t i o n s and, Walker to Id. c o n d i t i o n o r t o warn o f t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e b u r d e n had matters by not s h i f t e d substantial to 794. at e s t a b l i s h those unsafe I n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , b o t h B r a n d o n and that they did indication occurred. did not that, know the that, swing was and that unsafe I n d e e d , Renee t e s t i f i e d evidence. Kimberly they before testified had the had accident i n her d e p o s i t i o n t h a t she n o t b e l i e v e t h a t B r a n d o n o r K i m b e r l y knew t h a t t h e r e was anything wrong w i t h the s w i n g , t h a t she d i d not b e l i e v e that B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y w o u l d have l e t t h e i r c h i l d r e n s i t on s w i n g i f t h e y had known t h e r e t h a t she f a m i l y members had past, on no and and her other t h a t she previous conclude, a problem w i t h use and that observation unlike a f f i r m a t i v e prima 17 the swing, s a t on t h e s w i n g i n t h o u g h t t h e s w i n g was therefore, K i m b e r l y made an was in f i n e t o s i t on of the Walker, facie the the based swing. We Brandon and showing that they 2091133 were not aware Therefore, the of the defective burden shifted condition to Renee of to the establish s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y had duty to her to keep their premises c o n d i t i o n o r t o warn o f u n s a f e Renee asserts that she in a swing. by violated a reasonably safe conditions. met that b u r d e n by presenting B r a n d o n ' s and K i m b e r l y ' s t e s t i m o n y t h a t , " l o o k i n g b a c k , " t h e y "should h a v e " known t h a t they should based on the have r e p l a c e d their s w i n g was the testimony i n bad that that Those a s s e r t i o n s swing. shape o r were other structures a wooden sidewalk rotten. It structures was were that needed to undisputed, visibly whereas that the r a i s e d any were those swing also other did B r a n d o n , K i m b e r l y , Renee, Rodney e a c h t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e i r o b s e r v a t i o n not and replaced, however, rotten, a p p e a r r o t t e n upon o b s e r v a t i o n . be the been r e p l a c e d b a c k y a r d , i n c l u d i n g a wooden d e c k t h a t had in of the swing not and had c o n c e r n s about the soundness of i t s s t r u c t u r e . Renee a s s e r t s t h a t B r a n d o n and K i m b e r l y s h o u l d have known t h a t the s w i n g was without rotten, incident, despite based on i t s appearance their and knowledge prior of use nearby s t r u c t u r e s t h a t were v i s i b l y r o t t e n and w e r e , o r had b e e n , i n 18 2091133 disrepair, shape unlike the swing f o r i t s n o r m a l use seven years w i t h o u t itself, and which was so u s e d and b a s e d on incident, a p p e a r e d t o be for in approximately their admissions a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t t h a t t h e s w i n g s h o u l d have b e e n r e p l a c e d o r t o r n down. We conclude t h a t t h a t evidence i s not evidence" s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h a genuine "substantial i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t r e g a r d i n g B r a n d o n ' s and K i m b e r l y ' s p o t e n t i a l k n o w l e d g e o f the c o n d i t i o n of the swing, and Kimberly swing and without were n o t t h a t the g i v e n the t e s t i m o n y t h a t Brandon aware o f t h e swing had rotten b e e n u s e d by c o n d i t i o n of Renee and the others incident. We t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f B r a n d o n and Kimberly. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 19 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.