## Facts

- Chad E. Cochran, an adult pedestrian, was visiting a friend in Warrensburg, Missouri, across the street from a Burger King restaurant.
- Around 2:00 a.m., with the restaurant closed and exterior lights off, Cochran repeatedly crossed Burger King’s parking lot as a shortcut to a nearby restaurant.
- On his return trip, Cochran decided to look for food in Burger King’s dumpster.
- The dumpster was inside an enclosure of three brick walls and a wooden gate intended for employee use, not the public.
- Cochran attempted to climb a brick wall of the enclosure to access the dumpster.
- About a month earlier, a trash truck had damaged the wall, leaving it weak and unstable; Burger King’s employees and manager knew of the condition.
- The wall collapsed while Cochran climbed it, causing catastrophic injuries, including amputations of his left leg and left thumb.
- Cochran sued for negligence based on failure to maintain the premises safely and failure to warn.
- A jury found Burger King 80% at fault and Cochran 20% at fault, awarding compensatory and punitive damages; Burger King appealed, asserting it owed no duty for Cochran’s activity.

## Issues

1. Whether Burger King owed Cochran a duty of care regarding a defective dumpster-enclosure wall when Cochran climbed the wall to access the dumpster in an area intended only for employees.
2. Whether any implied permission to cross the parking lot extended to climbing the dumpster enclosure wall, such that the case could properly be submitted to the jury rather than resolved by directed verdict.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the judgment for Cochran.
- The court held Burger King owed no duty to protect Cochran from defects in the dumpster-enclosure wall because Cochran had no implied permission to climb it.
- The court concluded Burger King’s motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted because the duty element failed as a matter of law.
- The reversal ended the case in Burger King’s favor rather than requiring a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Premises liability duties in Missouri depend on the entrant’s status (invitee, licensee, trespasser) and the scope of any invitation or permission.
- Any implied invitation is limited to the area and purposes reasonably contemplated; exceeding that scope can change the entrant’s status for the particular area or activity.
- Landowners generally owe trespassers no duty to make premises safe, aside from refraining from willful or wanton injury.
- A case should not be submitted to the jury unless each element of liability, including duty, is supported by legal and substantial evidence; directed verdict is proper when the plaintiff has no right to recover as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court held that even if Cochran had implied permission to traverse the parking lot, that permission did not extend to climbing a dumpster enclosure wall in an employee-only area; because Cochran’s injury arose from an unauthorized use outside any invitation, Burger King owed no duty, and the plaintiff’s verdict was reversed.


Cochran v. Burger King Corp., 937 S.W.2d 358 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 1996)