STEEN v GRENZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO . 129 59 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1975 ARTHUR STEEN, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - ROSE GRENZ and CHRIS GRENZ, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r f c t , Honorable A . B. Martin, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Roland V. Colgrove and John M. K l i n e , Miles C i t y , Montana Roland V.Colgrove argued, Miles C i t y , Montana For Respondent : Lucas, J a r d i n e and Monaghan, Miles C i t y , Montana Thomas Monaghan argued, Miles C i t y , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : Clerk June 12, 1975 -'-I9 1975 Mr. Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the district court, Custer County, to defendants Rose and Chris Grenz. Plaintiff Arthur Steen brought the original action to recover damages for an injury allegedly suffered to his wrist while entering a restaurant owned by defendants. Plaintiff, at approximately 1:30 a.m., April 10, 1969, ate dinner at the 600 Cafe owned by defendants. After paying for the meal he left through the restaurant's front door and went down the side street, heading towards his home. He stopped at the restaurant's side entrance to give his wife,who worked at the restauranG a message to call him early that morning because he had to get to work earlier than usual that day. He stated that as he started up the stairs he stumbled over some debris on the steps, fell forward, and his hand broke the glass in the door seriously lacerating his wrist. Steen filed a complaint alleging defendants were negligent in allowing the debris to accumulate around the door steps, especially in light of the fact defendants were aware the public used the side entrance to enter their restaurant. Depositions were taken and after all discovery was completed defendants moved for a summary judgment. In support, they argued plaintiff was a licensee at the time he attempted to enter the restaurant's side entrance, there was no showing of willful or wanton negligence on the part of defendants, and that that is the only duty owed by the landowner to a licensee. granted defendants summary judgment. The district court Plaintiff appeals. Four issues are presented for review: 1. Should this Court abandon the licensee, invitee, trespasser distinction? 2. Were defendants g u i l t y o f a c t i v e negligence and t k r e - f o r e l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e damages he s u f f e r e d i n s p i t e of the licensee relationship? 3. Was p l a i n t i f f a l i c e n s e e a t t h e time t h e a c c i d e n t 4, Did d e f e n d a n t s , a s a b u t t i n g owners, owe t h e duty t o occurred? t h o s e u s i n g t h e sidewalk t o u s e and keep t h e i r premises s o a s n o t t o r e n d e r t h e sidewalk u n s a f e f o r o r d i n a r y t r a f f i c ? F i r s t , p l a i n t i f f argues t h i s Court should abandon t h e l i c e n s e e , i n v i t e e , t r e s p a s s e r d i s t i n c t i o n s i n favor of t h e reasona b l e negligence theory. W a r e n o t persuaded. e The d i s t i n c t i o n s between i n v i t e e , l i c e n s e e , and t r e s p a s s e r have been c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d i n ~ o n t a n a ' sc a s e law and we f i n d no compelling reason t o change t h o s e d i s t i n c t i o n s a t t h i s time. Second, p l a i n t i f f argues t h e r e was a c t i v e n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of defendants i n allowing d e b r i s t o c o l l e c t on t h e s t e p s of t h e i r r e s t a u r a n t . F u r t h e r , t h a t such a c t i v e negligence i s an exception t o t h e r u l e t h a t a landowner owes a l i c e n s e e only t h e duty t o r e f r a i n from wanton and w i l l f u l negligence. W find that e argument t o b e n o t h i n g more than a hybrid of p l a i n t i f f ' s f i r s t argument t h a t t h i s Court should abandon t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s between l i c e n s e e , i n v i t e e and t r e s p a s s e r s . Again, we cannot s e e any n e c e s s i t y t o abandon t h i s p r i n c i p l e of law which h a s been t h e r u l i n g law of Montana f o r many y e a r s . T h i r d , p l a i n t i f f a l l u d e s t o t h e f a c t t h a t a t t h e time he was e n t e r i n g t h e r e s t a u r a n t ' s s i d e e n t r a n c e he was n o t a l i c e n s e e . W e cannot a g r e e w i t h any argument t h a t p l a i n t i f f w a s n o t a l i c e n s e e a t t h e time he attempted t o e n t e r t h e e n t r a n c e i n q u e s t i o n . He was e n t e r i n g f o r h i s own b e n e f i t , t h a t i s , t o g i v e h i s w i f e a message t o phone him. The long s t a n d i n g law of Montana i s t h a t when a person e n t e r s a n o t h e r p e r s o n ' s p r o p e r t y f o r h i s own p l e a s u r e , convenience o r b e n e f i t , he i s a l i c e n s e e and t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y has a d u t y t o t h e l i c e n s e e t o r e f r a i n from w i l l f u l and wanton negligence. Jonosky v. Northern Pac. Ry.Co., 57 Mont, 63, 187 P. 1014. Having determined p l a i n t i f f was a l i c e n s e e a t t h e time he a t t e m p t e d t o e n t e r t h e r e s t a u r a n t ' s s i d e e n t r a n c e ; having r e viewed t h e f a c t s ; and, having reviewed a l l d i s c o v e r y m a t e r i a l s f i l e d by b o t h p a r t i e s we can f i n d no testimony which would t e n d t o show w i l l f u l and wanton n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t s . Since t h e r e i s no i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h e r e h a s been no showing of w i l l f u l and wanton n e g l i g e n c e , summary judgment i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s was p r o p e r , u n l e s s an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e above s t a t e d r u l e would invoke l i a b i l i t y on t h e d e f e n d a n t s . P l a i n t i f f ' s f o u r t h i s s u e argues t h a t defendants, a s abutting owners, owe t h e d u t y t o t h o s e u s i n g t h e sidewalk t o u s e and keep t h e i r premises s o a s n o t t o r e n d e r t h e sidewalk u n s a f e f o r o r d i n a r y traffic. P l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t by c o n s t r u c t i n g c o n c r e t e s t e p s on t h e sidewalk on t h e s i d e of t h e i r r e s t a u r a n t t o be used f o r t h e purpose of e n t e r i n g i t , d e f e n d a n t s have a d u t y t o t h e p u b l i c t o keep t h e s t e p s f r e e of o b s t r u c t i o n s and by n o t doing s o t h e y a r e l i a b l e t o anyone i n j u r e d by such n e g l i g e n c e . I n Montana, t h e sidewalk i s owned by t h e c i t y . v. Thomas, 9 1 Mont. 370, 8 P.2d 639. Mitchell The g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t an a b u t t i n g owner i s n o t l i a b l e f o r t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e sidewalk i n f r o n t of h i s premises, and he owes no d u t y t o t h e t r a v e l i n g p u b l i c t o keep t h e sidewalk i n f r o n t of h i s premises f r e e from o b s t r u c t i o n s . C h i l d e r s v. Deschamps, 87 Mont. 505, 290 P. 261. Exceptions t o t h i s r u l e a r e c o a l h o l e s , meter boxes, and o t h e r d e v i c e s of s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r l o c a t e d i n t h e sidewalk which b e n e f i t t h e a b u t t i n g owner a n d m e l o c a t e d where t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c i s l i k e l y t o walk. I n t h o s e c a s e s , i t becomes t h e d u t y of t h e a b u t t i n g owner t o keep such d e v i c e s i n good r e p a i r . Hammond B u i l d i n g , I n c . , 97 Mont. 243, 33 P.2d 574. Headley v. S t e p s used only f o r t h e purpose of i n g r e s s and e g r e s s of d e f e n d a n t s ' r e s t a u r a n t do n o t come w i t h i n t h e e x c e p t i o n t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e . Theref o r e , p l a i n t i f f ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t s owed a d u t y t o him to keep the steps free of obstruction is without merit. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Justice We Concur: .................................... Chief Justice Justices. \ u
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.
