Carter v. Kinney, 896 S.W.2d 926 (Mo. 1995) (en banc)
Carter v. Kinney is a leading Missouri Supreme Court decision on premises liability that clarifies the distinction between invitees and licensees and the duties landowners owe to each.
Was Carter, a church member attending a privately organized Bible study at the Kinneys' home, an invitee or a licensee for premises liability purposes, and what duty did the Kinneys owe him regarding an unknown patch of black ice on their driveway?
Under Missouri law, a land possessor's duty to entrants depends on their status. An invitee is one who is on the premises either (1) for a purpose connected with the business dealings of the land possessor and conferring a material benefit on the possessor, or (2) as a public invitee, where the premises are held open to the general public. A possessor owes invitees a duty of reasonable care, including the duty to inspect and make safe, or warn of, dangers the possessor knows or should know about. A licensee is one who enters with permission for his or her own purposes, pleasure, or benefit and not to confer a material benefit on the possessor, and who is not invited as a member of the general public. As to licensees, the possessor owes a more limited duty: to refrain from willful or wanton injury and to warn of or make safe latent dangers actually known to the possessor and not known to the licensee. There is no duty to inspect for unknown hazards for the protection of licensees.
Carter was a licensee, not an invitee, and the Kinneys owed him no duty to inspect for or protect against the unknown black ice; summary judgment for the Kinneys was affirmed.
Carter v. Kinney reaffirms Missouri's adherence to the traditional invitee-licensee-trespasser framework and clarifies that private, noncommercial gatherings—even those organized through a church—do not create invitee status. The decision underscores two key exam takeaways: (1) classify the entrant precisely by focusing on material benefit and whether the premises were held open to the public; and (2) tie the entrant's status to the scope of duty, remembering that for licensees there is no duty to inspect for unknown hazards. It is also a useful counterpoint to jurisdictions that follow a general duty of reasonable care to all entrants.