## Facts

- Leon Barmore visited the Elmore home to discuss Masonic lodge business with Thomas Elmore, Sr.
- During the visit, Thomas Elmore, Jr. entered holding a steak knife, accused Barmore of talking about him, and advanced toward him.
- Thomas Sr. tried to restrain his son as Barmore attempted to leave.
- Thomas Jr. broke free, chased Barmore outside, and stabbed him multiple times in the chest.
- Thomas Sr. came outside, observed Barmore’s injuries, and summoned help.
- Thomas Jr. had a history of mental illness and prior hospitalizations.
- About ten years earlier, Thomas Jr. had been involved in two or three violent incidents, but he later received treatment, worked, lived independently, and previously interacted with Barmore without incident.
- Barmore alleged the parents knew of their son’s condition and past violence and negligently failed to warn or protect him from this danger on their property.

## Issues

1. Whether Barmore’s visit to discuss fraternal-organization business made him an invitee rather than a licensee for premises-liability purposes.
2. Whether the parents, as landowners, owed a duty to protect or warn Barmore against their adult son’s criminal assault, given the son’s mental-health history and remote prior violence.
3. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable finding that the parents knew or had reason to know the assault was likely, such that a directed verdict was improper.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for Thomas Elmore, Sr. and Esther Elmore on the negligence count.
- The court held Barmore was a licensee, not an invitee, because the visit primarily benefited the lodge and the visitor rather than the homeowners’ business interests.
- The court held the evidence overwhelmingly showed the parents did not know and had no reason to know their son would commit a criminal act against Barmore.
- Because the assault was not reasonably foreseeable to the parents on this record, no jury could properly find a breach of any duty owed to Barmore.

## Legal Principles

- A social guest is generally a licensee: a person who enters by permission for the guest’s own purposes.
- Landowners owe licensees a limited duty: to warn of hidden dangers known to the owner and unknown to the licensee, and to refrain from willful and wanton injury.
- Invitee status turns on whether the entrant is on the land in furtherance of the landowner’s business; mere discussion of organizational “business” does not create invitee status absent a primary benefit to the landowner.
- A landowner’s duty to take precautions against third-party criminal acts depends on foreseeability; without knowledge or reason to anticipate the specific risk, liability will not attach.
- Remote, dated incidents of violence followed by years of nonviolent functioning and uneventful prior interactions may be insufficient to place landowners on notice that a sudden criminal attack is likely.

## Conclusion

The court treated the visitor as a licensee and concluded the parents lacked reason to anticipate their adult son’s attack; because the criminal assault was not reasonably foreseeable on the evidence presented, the directed verdict for the homeowners was affirmed.


Barmore v. Elmore, 83 Ill. App. 3d 1056, 403 N.E.2d 1355 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)