## Facts

- Allen J. Holzheimer and Erling Johannesen each owned fruit farms near Emmett, Idaho.
- Farmers in the area routinely sold fruit-packing boxes to one another at cost or loaned them as a favor, with an expectation that the help would be returned.
- On July 2, 1990, Holzheimer went to Johannesen’s farm to obtain “L.A. lug” fruit-packing boxes.
- Johannesen’s foreman, William McConnell, took Holzheimer into Johannesen’s warehouse, pointed out where the boxes were kept, and showed him how to get them.
- McConnell told Holzheimer he could come back and retrieve additional boxes on his own when needed.
- On July 4, 1990, Holzheimer returned to the warehouse to obtain more boxes.
- Inside the warehouse, pallets of boxes were arranged in rows. Some boxes were “chimney stacked,” leaving an opening (an eight-to-ten-inch hole) down the center of the stack.
- While attempting to retrieve boxes, Holzheimer climbed onto the pallets and fell into the center opening, suffering head and shoulder injuries.
- Holzheimer sued Johannesen for premises liability, claiming he was a business invitee and therefore owed the higher duty of care applicable to invitees.
- Johannesen argued Holzheimer was a licensee because the box transactions were reciprocal favors done at cost (without profit) and primarily benefited Holzheimer.
- Before trial, Johannesen sought summary judgment on the theory that Holzheimer was a licensee and that Johannesen did not breach the duty owed to a licensee; the trial court denied the motion, leaving Holzheimer’s status for the jury.
- At trial, Holzheimer introduced evidence of prior box transactions to show a business relationship; the trial court excluded evidence of past fruit sales but allowed invoices to be modified to reflect box transactions.
- Johannesen testified he expected Holzheimer either to pay the cost of the boxes or to replace them, that he made no profit on these exchanges, and that the labor involved could mean he lost money overall.
- The jury received instructions defining invitee and licensee status and stating the duty of care for each; the jury returned a general verdict for Johannesen without specifying Holzheimer’s status.

## Issues

1. Whether Holzheimer was a business invitee as a matter of law, making it error to instruct the jury on licensee status and the licensee duty of care.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by excluding evidence of prior fruit sales (while admitting evidence of prior box transactions) offered to show a business relationship.
3. Whether the trial court’s rulings denying Johannesen’s requests for judgment as a matter of law required reversal.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment entered on the jury’s verdict for Johannesen.
- The court held Holzheimer was not an invitee as a matter of law; the evidence supported different reasonable views of the purpose of the entry and who received the main benefit.
- Because reasonable jurors could differ on invitee versus licensee status, the trial court properly submitted that question to the jury and properly instructed on both standards of care.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence of prior fruit sales while allowing evidence (including modified invoices) of prior box dealings relevant to the relationship tied to the visit at issue.
- The court rejected Holzheimer’s claim that giving licensee instructions required a new trial, noting the jury was also instructed on invitee duties and returned a defense verdict on the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- A land entrant’s status as invitee or licensee depends on the nature and purpose of the visit, including whether the visit was connected to the landowner’s business or economic interest or instead was primarily for the entrant’s own convenience.
- When the evidence allows more than one reasonable inference about the purpose of the entry and the benefit conferred, entrant status is a question for the jury rather than a question of law.
- A general defense verdict will be upheld where the jury is instructed on the competing entrant classifications supported by the evidence and is given the correct duty of care for each classification.
- Trial courts have broad discretion over evidentiary rulings; excluding some evidence of a broader business relationship is not reversible error where the jury still receives evidence directed to the specific relationship and transaction involved in the injury.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed a defense verdict after concluding that the reciprocal, at-cost practice of sharing fruit-packing boxes could reasonably be viewed either as a business-related benefit to Johannesen or as a neighborly arrangement mainly benefiting Holzheimer; because that mixed record supported competing inferences, Holzheimer’s invitee/licensee status was properly left to the jury, and the trial court’s evidentiary limits on prior dealings did not warrant reversal.


Holzheimer v. Johannesen, 871 P.2d 814 (1994)