CARTER v. KINNEY Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A man attending a Bible study at a private home slipped on ice and sued the homeowners. The court held he was a licensee, not an invitee, because the homeowners received no material benefit and the invitation was not public, thus limiting their liability.
Legal Significance: This case reaffirms Missouri’s adherence to the traditional common law entrant statuses (licensee/invitee). It clarifies that an invitation for a non-commercial, semi-public purpose, like a church group meeting, does not elevate a social guest to the status of an invitee.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendants, the Kinneys, hosted a Bible study at their home for members of their church. Plaintiff, Jonathan Carter, was a church member who signed up to attend the study. The invitation was limited to fellow church members and was not extended to the general public. The Kinneys received no financial or other tangible, material benefit from hosting the event or from Carter’s attendance. The night before the meeting, Mr. Kinney shoveled snow from his driveway but was unaware that a patch of ice had formed overnight. Upon arriving for the Bible study, Carter slipped on the unseen ice patch, fell, and broke his leg. Carter filed a negligence suit against the Kinneys, alleging that he was an invitee to whom the Kinneys owed a duty to inspect for and protect against unknown dangers. The Kinneys moved for summary judgment, arguing Carter was a licensee. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Kinneys.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a person attending an organized Bible study at a private residence, at the invitation of the homeowner but for no material benefit to the homeowner, qualify as an invitee for the purposes of premises liability?
The court held that Carter was a licensee, not an invitee. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco l
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a person attending an organized Bible study at a private residence, at the invitation of the homeowner but for no material benefit to the homeowner, qualify as an invitee for the purposes of premises liability?
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong precedent in jurisdictions retaining common law Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Legal Rule
An entrant is classified as an invitee only if the possessor of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate veli
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the trial court's grant of summary Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commod
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A person attending a church Bible study at a private home