Facts: The plaintiff came into the defendant’s store, and made a purchase. Then, the plaintiff asked for a box that he went to the back room with the defendant's consent to get a
box, and P was injured.
Ruled in favor of the defendant
Issue: Whether the plaintiff’s entering into the backroom after the purchase was made extends his status as an invitee or recategorize him as a licensee.
Rules: A visitor has the status of an invitee only while is on the part of the land to which his invitations extends. If the invitee goes outside of the area of his invitation, he becomes a trespasser or a licensee, depending upon with or without the consent of the possessor.
Analysis: The court stated that the backroom is not the extension of mutual benefit where P is treated as an invitee.
Conclucion: the outcome of the case at the previous level was affirmed
Co: If the toilet open to the public, it is an invitee
If not, it is licensee