## Facts

- Todd Winston Erwin frequently visited Michael and Reeda Hale’s home while dating their daughter and was treated as a close family friend.
- The Hales planned a New Year’s Eve bonfire in a pasture near their home and decided to cut down a dead pine tree near the planned site.
- On December 6, 1994, Erwin went to the Hales’ property, took their chainsaw, and began cutting down the tree.
- After roughly forty-five minutes of cutting, the tree fell in an unexpected direction and struck Erwin, killing him.
- Evidence showed Erwin had prior experience cutting and trimming trees.
- Testimony indicated Erwin’s cuts were not made according to safe tree-felling practices (including improper cut spacing and failure to use a rope or wedges to control the fall).
- Erwin’s estate representative sued the Hales for premises-liability wrongful death; after the plaintiff rested, the trial court granted a directed verdict for the Hales.

## Issues

1. Whether Erwin’s legal status on the property at the time of the accident was that of an invitee or a licensee.
2. Whether, under the duty owed to a person with Erwin’s status, there was evidence of landowner negligence sufficient to submit the case to the jury, making a directed verdict improper.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the directed verdict for the Hales.
- Erwin was a licensee as a matter of law because his presence and activities were social in nature and not for a mutual business benefit.
- Under the licensee standard, there was no evidence the Hales breached any duty by willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct or by failing to warn of a concealed danger known to them and unknown to Erwin.
- The danger that caused the death arose from the tree-felling activity and how the tree was cut, not from a preexisting concealed condition of the premises known to the Hales.

## Legal Principles

- In Texas premises liability, a social guest is a licensee, even if expressly invited and even if the guest is closely integrated into the household.
- An invitee status requires entry for a purpose connected with the landowner’s business or for the mutual benefit of the parties; a social favor tied to a social event does not create invitee status.
- A landowner’s duty to a licensee is limited: the owner must not cause injury by willful, wanton, or grossly negligent conduct and must warn of (or make safe) dangerous conditions known to the owner that the licensee is unlikely to discover.
- A directed verdict is proper when, viewing the evidence most favorably to the nonmovant, there is no evidence of probative force raising a material fact issue on a required element.

## Conclusion

The court treated Erwin as a licensee because his relationship to the landowners and his participation in preparations for a social bonfire did not create a mutual business benefit, and it affirmed judgment for the landowners because the record lacked evidence that they knew of and failed to warn of a concealed dangerous condition or otherwise breached a duty owed to a licensee.


Knorpp v. Hale, 981 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1998)