Neglect in Court Cases

Knorpp v Hale 981 SW 2nd 469 (Tex. App. 1998) Knorpp v Hale is a case from Texas that deals with the issues of responsibility towards an individual coming onto one's personal property and then experiencing a danderous or negative situation. In this case, Bonita Knorpp believed that her son, Todd Erwin, was a licensee rather than an invitee at the time of his death.

The procedural history of this case focuses on the notion that Knorpp (the administrator of her son's estate) wanted the Court to review an order from the 202nd Judicial District court that found the Erwin was a social guest when he was killed (Knorpp v Hale, 1998). The background of the case shows that Erwin was dating the Autumn Hale, daughter of Michael and Reeda Hale. The two had been dating for about a year, and Erwin spent a considerable amount of time at the Hale's home.

In fact, the Hale family was planning a New Year's Eve party to include a bonfire around the base of an already dead pine tree. Erwin, trying to be helpful to the family, borrowed the Hale's chain saw and began to cut down the tree on December 6, 1994. During the event, the tree fell in a different direction than was planned, and landed on Erwin, causing his death. Evidence was presented to the Court that Erwin had previously worked for Hale doing trimming work.

Hale told the Court that he believed Erwin did not cut the tree properly, nor take proper precautions (ropes, measures, etc.) when deciding to cut the tree. After reviewing the evidence presented, the Court granted a directed verdict motion and ruled that Hale was a licencee on the property and no evidence had been presented that the Hales were in any way negligent (Knorpp v Hale, 1998).

The major focus of the case revolves around the question as to whether Erwin was an invitee or a licensee during the incident with the pine tree. When reviewing the case, the Court had to decide what the responsibilities were from the Hales -- as owner of the property, for instance, what was their responsibility. Using previous precedent, the Court defined that an invitee was an individual who came onto another person's property with the full knowledge of the owner and permission.

However, a licensee is an individual who has consent to enter the property, but does so "for his own convenience or on business." The duty of the property owner owes a licensee a degree of reasonable safety and accommodation so that there is nothing that is willful or negligent that might cause harm to the licensee.

The evidence in this case showed that Erwin was, in fact, a regular visitor to the Hale's home, had is own key, was able to come and go unsupervised and at will, clearly had an open invitation to the property, and was a potential son-in-law (Knorpp v Hale). At first blush, this would mean that Erwin was an invitee. However, in Texas a "social guest" is classified as a licensee based on previous case law, cited by the Court.

To prove damages, Knorpp had to prove that the Hales had previous knowledge.