WPI 120.08.01 Social Guest—Definition

Use this instruction if the entrant is invited upon the premises for a purpose not connected with any business interest or benefit to the owner or occupier or if the entrant is invited upon the premises and there is a question whether there was a business interest or benefit to the owner or occupier that would constitute a business invitee relationship. If the entrant is upon the premises without an invitation but with permission, use WPI 120.08 (Licensee—Definition), instead of this instruction.

Use either WPI 120.06 (Duty to Licensee or Social Guest—Activities or Condition of Premises), or WPI 120.06.01 (Duty of Business Proprietor to Customer—Activities or Condition of Premises), with this instruction.

The definition used in this instruction is a modification of the “licensee” definition found in Dotson v. Haddock, 46 Wn.2d 52, 278 P.2d 338 (1955). The Washington Supreme Court in that case stated that a social guest may be expressly invited onto the premises, but nevertheless is considered a licensee. Dotson v. Haddock, 46 Wn.2d at 55. See also Potts v. Amis, 62 Wn.2d 777, 778, 384 P.2d 825 (1963).

The distinctions between a social guest and an invitee are discussed in detail in Younce v. Ferguson, 106 Wn.2d 658, 724 P.2d 991 (1986).

Generally, the question of the status of a visitor is a question of law to be decided by the court. When facts are in dispute, however, the issue must be decided by the jury and appropriate instructions defining the various possible legal statuses of the visitor (and the resultant standard of care) must be given. Beebe v. Moses, 113 Wn.App. 464, 54 P.3d 188 (2002) (question whether plaintiff, injured at the home in which a Tupperware sales party was being held, is a social guest/licensee or business invitee one of fact for the jury when there were facts in dispute as to the visit's primary purpose).