Section VI. Liability of Occupiers of Premises

MAYNARD v. BOSTON AND MAINE RAILROAD Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, September 4, 1874. Reported in 115 Massachusetts Reports, 458.

Tort for the killing of a horse on a railroad by a locomotive engine.

Upon the trial, the plaintiff admitted that the horse must be considered as trespassing upon the railroad, but contended and offered evidence tending to show that by an exercise of proper care the injury to the horse might have been avoided. The defendants offered evidence to control this, and tending to show that they did all they reasonably could do to stop their train before striking the horse. There was no evidence of any wanton misconduct on their part.

The counsel for the defendants contended and asked the presiding judge to rule, that the defendants would not be liable, unless the plaintiff proved a reckless and wanton misconduct of their employees in the management of the train when the horse was killed. The presiding judge declined so to rule; but did rule that though the horse was trespassing upon the defendants’ land at the time, the managers of the train could not carelessly run over him, but were bound to use reasonable care to avoid injuring him, and that if the jury found that by the exercise of reasonable care they might have avoided injuring the horse, they would be liable. The jury found for the plaintiff, and the defendants alleged exceptions.

Gray, C. J. If the horse had been rightfully upon the defendants’ land, it would have been their duty to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring the horse. But it being admitted by the plaintiff that his horse was trespassing upon the railroad, they did not owe him that duty, and were not liable to him for anything short of a reckless and wanton misconduct of those employed in the management of their train. The defendants were therefore entitled to the instruction which they requested. Tonawanda Railroad v. Munger, 5 Denio, 255; S. C. 4 Comst. 349; Vandegrift v. Rediker, 2 Zab. 185; Railroad Co. v. Skinner, 19 Penn. St. 298; Tower v. Providence & Worcester Railroad, 2 R. I. 404; Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. Waterson, 4 Ohio St. 424; Louisville & Frankfort Railroad v. Ballard, 2 Met. (Ky.) 177.

The instruction given to the jury held the defendants to the same obligation to the plaintiff as if his horse had been rightfully on their land; and made their paramount duty to the public of running the train with proper speed and safety, and their use of the land set apart and fitted for the performance of that duty, subordinate to the care of private interests in property which was upon their track without right.

Some passages in the opinion in Eames v. Salem & Lowell Railroad, 98 Mass. 560, 563, were relied on by the plaintiff’s counsel at the argument, and apparently formed the basis of the rulings of the learned judge in the Court below. But in that case there was no evidence of any negligence or misconduct in the management of the train, and an exact definition of the defendants’ liability, by reason of such negligence or misconduct, was not required. In the present case such a definition was requested by the defendants in appropriate terms, and was refused, and for that refusal their

Exceptions must be sustained.

HERRICK v. WIXOM Supreme Court, Michigan, September 27, 1899. Reported in 121 Michigan Reports, 384.

Trespass on the Case for personal injuries.

Defendant was the possessor and manager of a tent show or circus. On the afternoon of an exhibition plaintiff went inside the tent and took a seat. There was a conflict of testimony as to whether plaintiff was invited into the tent by an authorized agent of defendant, or whether he entered without any invitation or other justification. A feature of the entertainment consisted in the ignition and explosion of a giant firecracker, attached to a pipe set in an upright position in one of the show rings. Plaintiff sat thirty or forty feet from the place where the cracker was exploded. At the explosion, part of the firecracker flew and struck plaintiff in the eye, whereby he lost the sight of his eye.

The judge left to the jury the question whether it was negligent in defendant to explode this firecracker in the inside of the tent and in the presence of the audience.

Then he gave, among others, the following instruction:—

“Now you must further find, in order that the plaintiff recover, that the plaintiff was in the tent, where he was injured, by the invitation of some person having authority to allow him to go in there. If he was a mere trespasser, who forced his way in, then the defendant owed him no duty that would enable him to recover under the declaration and proofs in this case.”...

Verdict of no cause of action. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brought error.

Montgomery, J. [After stating the case.] We think this instruction faulty, in so far as it was intended to preclude recovery in any event if the plaintiff was found to be a trespasser. It is true that a trespasser who suffers an injury because of a dangerous condition of premises is without remedy. But, where a trespasser is discovered upon the premises by the owner or occupant, he is not beyond the pale of the law, and any negligence resulting in injury will render the person guilty of negligence liable to respond in damages. Beach, Contrib. Neg. § 50; Whart. Neg. § 346; Marble v. Ross, 124 Mass. 44; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Sympkins, 54 Tex. 615 (38 Am. Rep. 632); Brown v. Lynn, 31 Pa. St. 510 (72 Am. Dec. 768); Needham v. Railroad Co., 37 Cal. 409; Davies v. Mann, 10 Mees. & W. 546; 1 Shear. & R. Neg. § 99. In this case the negligent act of the defendant’s servant was committed after the audience was made up. The presence of plaintiff was known, and the danger to him from a negligent act was also known. The question of whether a dangerous experiment should be attempted in his presence, or whether an experiment should be conducted with due care and regard to his safety, cannot be made to depend upon whether he had forced himself into the tent. Every instinct of humanity revolts at such a suggestion.

For this error the judgment will be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

CINCINNATI & ZANESVILLE R. CO. v. SMITH Supreme Court, Ohio, December Term, 1871. Reported in 22 Ohio State Reports, 227.

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Fayette County, reserved in the District Court.

The plaintiff below, Richard Smith, sued the defendant below, the Cincinnati & Zanesville Railroad Company, to recover the value of two horses alleged to have been killed through the negligence of the servants of the defendant in operating one of its trains. The inclosure of the plaintiff adjoined the railroad of the defendant; and from this inclosure, on the night on which the horses were killed, they escaped on to the railroad.

The Court, among other things, charged the jury as follows:—

The defendant’s servants in this case were not bound to use extraordinary care or extraordinary means to save the plaintiff’s horses. But they were bound to use what, in that peculiar business, is ordinary care and diligence; and if the loss of the horses was the result of a want of that ordinary care and diligence, the defendant is liable.

The defendant had the right to the free and unobstructed use of its railroad track. And the paramount duty of the employees is the protection of the passengers and property in the train, and the train itself.

But this being their paramount duty, they are bound to use ordinary care and diligence, so as not unnecessarily to injure the property of others.

Under the circumstances of the case, could and would reasonably prudent men, skilled in that kind of business, keeping in view as their paramount duty the protection and safety of the train, its passengers, and the property on and about it intrusted to their care, in the exercise of ordinary care have stopped the train and saved the horses? If so, and the defendant’s servants did not so act, the defendant is liable in this case; otherwise the defendant is not liable.

In considering the paramount duty of the employees in the proper management of the train for the safety of passengers and property of its train, you have a right to determine whether they have other duties to perform. It is claimed the engineer had other duties than watching the track to perform, which were necessary for the safety of the passengers and property of the train,—such as gauging his steam, watching time-table, regulating his supply of water, examining his machinery, watching for the station-signal, etc. If such were the case, he had a lawful right to perform these duties, and was not bound to neglect them to save the plaintiff’s horses, nor bound to watch the track while performing these duties. They were only bound, under the circumstances of the case, to use ordinary care and diligence to save the horses,—the safety of the passengers and property of the train being their paramount duty; and if the jury find from the evidence that the persons in charge of the engine were attending to the duties of the train approaching the station at the time of the accident, these duties were paramount to watching the track for trespassing animals; and if the horses were not, on that account, discovered in time to save them by using ordinary means to stop the train, the defendant is not liable.

It is claimed by the defendant’s counsel that off the crossings of the railroad the servants of the railroad company have a right to presume that there are no trespassers on the roadway; that they are not bound to look out for trespassers except for the safety of passengers or property in charge. It is also claimed that inasmuch as the road at the place where the plaintiff’s horses got on the track and were killed was fenced, on that account the defendant’s servants in charge of the train were not bound to look out for trespassing stock. Upon this question I only can charge you this: That if the railroad was fenced at the place where the horses got on and were killed, and this was known to the defendant’s employees, you have a right to look to that circumstance as reflecting upon and in determining whether the employees exercised ordinary care in the management of the train. But if they might, in the exercise of ordinary care, have discovered the animals, although they were trespassers on the roadway, other than at a crossing, in time to have prevented their destruction, it was their duty to do so; and if from such want of ordinary care they were not discovered in time to prevent their destruction, the defendant is liable for their loss to the plaintiff.

White, J. The whole charge is set out in the bill of exceptions. Considering its several parts in connection, and giving to the whole a fair construction, we deem it necessary only to notice two particulars in which it is objected to.

These are: 1. Whether the fact that the horses were trespassing on the track excused the servants of the defendant from the exercise of ordinary care; and, 2. Whether that fact, and the additional one that the road was fenced, excused the engineer, as respects the owner of stray animals, from looking ahead to see whether such animals were on the track or not.

In regard to the first of these particulars, it is contended on behalf of the railroad company that, as the horses were trespassing on the railroad, the company was exempt from using ordinary care to save them, and that it was only liable for what is called gross negligence.

The Court instructed the jury that the defendant had the right to the free and unobstructed use of its railroad track, and that the paramount duty of its employees was the protection of the passengers and property in the train, and the train itself. But this being their paramount duty, they were bound to use ordinary care and diligence so as not unnecessarily to injure the property of others.

We think the charge stated the law correctly. We see no good reason, in principle, why a party, so far as may be consistent with the full enjoyment of his own rights, ought not to use ordinary care so as not unnecessarily to injure the property of others.

It is true, the rule contended for by the counsel of the plaintiff in error is sustained by a number of authorities. But the later and better considered cases are to the contrary. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Middlesworth, 46 Ill. 494; Bemis v. Conn., &c. R. R., 42 Vt. 375; Isbell v. N. Y. R. R. Co., 27 Conn. 393; Redfield’s American Railway Cases, 355, 356.

The rule contended for has never been adopted in this State. It is, moreover, as respects railroad companies, inconsistent with our statute law on the subject. S. & C. 331.

The facts in the case of the C. H. & D. R. R. Co. v. Waterson & Kirk, 4 Ohio St. 424, cited and relied upon by the counsel of the plaintiff in error, were different from those in the case now before us, and we do not regard the rule there laid down as to the liability of the company in that case as applicable to this.

From what has been said of the charge in the first particular named, it would seem to follow that it is unobjectionable as respects the second. If it was the duty of the servants of the company, so far as was consistent with their other and paramount duties, to use ordinary care to avoid injuring animals on the track, they were, of course, bound to adopt the ordinary precautions to discover danger, as well as to avoid its consequences after it became known.

The fact that the road was fenced at the place of collision with the horses, was a circumstance to be considered in connection with the other circumstances of the case in determining whether the engineer was guilty of negligence in not looking ahead and discovering the danger in time to avoid it. The fact that the road was fenced rendered it less probable that wandering animals would be on the track; but it cannot be said that the engineer, as a matter of law, by reason of the fences, was wholly excused from keeping a lookout ahead of the train.

If the servants of the company in charge of the train, having due regard to their duties for the safety of the persons and property in their charge, could, by the exercise of ordinary care, have seen and saved the horses, we think they were bound to have done so. Bemis v. Conn., &c. R. R., supra, 381; Louis. & Nash. R. R. Co. v. Wainscott, 3 Bush, 149.

Judgment affirmed.

SHEEHAN v. ST. PAUL & DULUTH R. CO. United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, October 16, 1896. Reported in 46 U. S. Appeals, 498.

Seaman, J. The plaintiff at the time of his injury was neither in the relation of passenger nor of one in a public crossing or place in which the public were licensed to travel, but upon the undisputed facts was a mere intruder on the tracks of the defendant, technically a trespasser; and this record excludes any of the elements of implied license or invitation to such use which have given rise to much discussion and diversity of views in the courts. Therefore the inquiry is here squarely presented, What is the duty which a railway company owes to a trespasser on its tracks, and how and when does the duty arise? The decisions upon this subject uniformly recognize that the trespasser cannot be treated as an outlaw; and at the least that, if wantonly injured in the operation of the railroad, the company is answerable in damages. Clearly, then, an obligation is placed upon the company to exercise some degree of care when the danger becomes apparent. Is it, however, bound to foresee or assume that rational beings will thus enter as trespassers in a place of danger, and to exercise in the running of its trains the constant vigilance in view of that probability which is imposed for public crossings? There are cases which would seem to hold this strict requirement (see note, 1 Thompson on Negligence (1880), 448; East Tennessee and Georgia Railroad Co. v. St. John, 5 Sneed, 524); but by the great preponderance of authority, in this country and in England, the more reasonable doctrine is pronounced, in effect, as follows: That the railroad company has the right to a free track in such places; that it is not bound to any act or service in anticipation of trespassers thereon; and that the trespasser who ventures to enter upon a track for any purpose of his own assumes all risks of the conditions which may be found there, including the operation of engines and cars. Wright v. Boston and Maine Railroad, 129 Mass. 440; Philadelphia and Reading Railroad Company v. Hummell, 44 Penn. St. 375. The decision by this court, in Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Philips’ Administrator (1), 24 U. S. Appeals, 489, adopts the view held in this line of cases, citing the authorities of which repetition here is unnecessary. The same doctrine prevails in Minnesota, where the injury in question arose. Johnson v. Truesdale, 46 Minnesota, 345; Studley v. St. Paul & Duluth R. Co., 48 Minnesota, 249. In the latter case it was held that there could be no recovery “unless the engineer saw the girl in time to avoid the accident, and then was guilty of such gross negligence in not trying to avoid it as to evince a reckless disregard of human life;” and the opinion gives this further exposition of the rule: “The defendant’s engineer was under no obligation to anticipate a trespasser, or to look out for persons walking upon the track; but, upon discovering plaintiff’s intestate across the cattle-guard, as he claims she was when he noticed that she was in danger, it became the engineer’s duty to use proper care to avoid running her down. If he failed to exercise proper care, he would necessarily be grossly negligent and evince a reckless disregard of human life.” So in Wisconsin, in Anderson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, 87 Wisconsin, 195, 204, it is said: “The use of a railroad is exclusively for its owners or those acting under its authority, and the company is not bound to the exercise of any active duty of care or diligence towards mere trespassers upon its track, to keep a lookout to discover or protect them from injury, except that, when discovered in a position of danger or peril, it is its duty to use all reasonable and proper effort to save and protect them from the probable consequences of their indiscretion or negligence.”

The well-established and just rule which holds the railroad company to the exercise of constant and strict care against injury through its means is applicable only to the relation on which it is founded, of an existing duty or obligation. This active or positive duty arises in favor of the public at a street crossing or other place at which it is presumable that persons or teams may be met. It is not material, so far as concerns this inquiry, whether the place is one for which a lawful right of passage exists, as it is the fact of notice to the company arising out of its existence and the probability of its use which imposes the positive duty to exercise care; the requirement of an extreme degree of care being superadded because of the hazards which attend the operations of the company. The case of a trespasser on the track in a place not open to travel is clearly distinguishable in the absence of this notice to the company. There is no constructive notice upon which to base the obligation of constant lookout for his presence there, and no actual notice up to the moment the trainmen have discovered the fact of his peril. As that peril comes wholly from his unauthorized act and temerity, the risk and all positive duty of care for his safety rest with the trespasser. The obligation of the company and its operatives is not then preëxisting, but arises at the moment of discovery, and is negative in its nature,—a duty which is common to human conduct to make all reasonable effort to avert injury to others from means which can be controlled.

This is the issue presented here. It excludes all inquiry respecting the character of the roadbed, cattle-guard, locomotive, brake appliances or other means of operation, or of the speed or manner of running the train up to the moment of notice, because no breach of positive duty is involved. It is confined to the evidence relating to the discovery by the engineer and fireman of the plaintiff’s peril and to the efforts then made to avert the injury; and out of that to ascertain whether, in any view which may justly be taken, it is shown that these men or the engineer in disregard of the duty which then confronted them neglected to employ with reasonable promptness the means at hand for stopping the train.

Brett, M. R., in HEAVEN v. PENDER (1883) 11 Queen’s Bench Division, 503, 506, 507.

Brett, M. R.... The action is in form and substance an action for negligence. That the stage was, through want of attention of the defendant’s servants, supplied in a state unsafe for use is not denied. But want of attention amounting to a want of ordinary care is not a good cause of action, although injury ensue from such want, unless the person charged with such want of ordinary care had a duty to the person complaining to use ordinary care in respect of the matter called in question. Actionable negligence consists in the neglect of the use of ordinary care or skill towards a person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which neglect the plaintiff, without contributory negligence on his part, has suffered injury to his person or property. The question in this case is whether the defendant owed such a duty to the plaintiff.

Mitchell, J., in AKERS v. CHICAGO, &c. R. CO. (1894) 58 Minnesota, 540, 544.

Mitchell, J. Actionable negligence is the failure to discharge a legal duty to the person injured. If there is no duty, there is no negligence. Even if a defendant owes a duty to some one else, but does not owe it to the person injured, no action will lie. The duty must be due to the person injured. These principles are elementary, and are equally applicable, whether the duty is imposed by positive statute or is founded on general common-law principles.

LARY v. CLEVELAND R. CO. Supreme Court, Indiana, November Term, 1881. Reported in 78 Indiana Reports, 323.

Lary sued the railroad company for damage alleged to have been sustained by him, through the negligent failure of the company to repair a building standing on its grounds, and formerly used by it as a freight house. Answer, a general denial. Upon the trial, the plaintiff introduced his evidence; the defendant demurred to it, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer. The Court sustained the demurrer, and the plaintiff excepted.

The facts which the plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove are substantially as follows:—

The railroad company owned half an acre of land between the railroad track and a highway. On this land was a building erected several years before for a freight house. It was no longer used as the general freight house, though still used for storing the company’s wood. A part of the roof of the building was off, and had been so for some months. The plaintiff, who was twenty years of age, was in the habit of passing the building almost daily, and had noticed that part of the roof was off. In a rain storm, the plaintiff went under the platform of the old freight house, and played there with other young people. A piece of the roof was torn off by the wind. The plaintiff, being frightened at the noise, ran out, saw the piece of the roof in the air, and ran towards the highway; but before or as he reached the edge of it, this fragment of the roof fell upon him.

Morris, C. [After stating the case.] Upon the facts thus stated, can the appellant maintain this action?

There is no testimony tending to show that the appellant was at the freight house by the invitation of the appellee, nor that he was there for the purpose of transacting any business with the appellee. The appellant intruded upon the premises of the appellee, and is not, therefore, entitled to that protection which one, expressly or by implication, invited into the house or place of business of another, is entitled to. The appellant was a trespasser, and as such he entered upon the appellee’s premises, taking the risks of all the mere omissions of the appellee as to the condition of the grounds and buildings thus invaded without leave. We do not wish to be understood as holding or implying that if, on the part of the appellee, there had been any act done implying a willingness to inflict the injury upon the appellant, it would not be liable. But we think there is nothing in the evidence from which such an inference can be reasonably drawn. The building could be seen by all; its condition was open to the inspection of every one; it had been abandoned as a place for the transaction of public business; it was in a state of palpable and visible decay, and no one was authorized, impliedly or otherwise, to go into or under it. Under such circumstances, the law says to him who intrudes into such a place, that he must proceed at his own risk.

In the case of The Pittsburgh, &c. R. W. Co. v. Bingham, 29 Ohio St. 364, the question was: “Is a railroad company bound to exercise ordinary care and skill in the erection, structure, or maintenance of its station house or houses, as to persons who enter or are at the same, not on any business with the company or its agents, nor on any business connected with the operation of its road; but are there without objection by the company, and therefore by its mere sufferance or permission?” The Court answered this question in the negative.

In the case of Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. N. S. 731, the plaintiff fell into a quarry, left open and unguarded on the unenclosed lands of the defendant, over which the public were permitted to travel; it was held that the owner was under no legal obligation to fence or guard the excavation unless it was so near the public road as to render travel thereon dangerous. That the person so travelling over such waste lands must take the permission with its concomitant conditions, and, it may be, perils. Hardcastle v. The South Yorkshire R. W. Co., 4 H. & N. 67; Sweeny v. Old Colony, &c. R. R. Co., 10 Allen, 368; Knight v. Abert, 6 Barr, 472.

After reviewing the above and other cases, Judge Boynton, in the case of The Pittsburgh, &c. R. W. Co. v. Bingham, supra, says:—

“The principle underlying the cases above cited recognizes the right of the owner of real property to the exclusive use and enjoyment of the same without liability to others for injuries occasioned by its unsafe condition, where the person receiving the injury was not in or near the place of danger by lawful right; and where such owner assumed no responsibility for his safety by inviting him there, without giving him notice of the existence or imminence of the peril to be avoided.”

In the case from which we have quoted, the intestate of the plaintiff was at the defendant’s station house, not on any business with it, but merely to pass away his time, when, by a severe and sudden blast of wind, a portion of the roof of the station house was blown off the building and against the intestate, with such force as to kill him. The case, in its circumstances, was not unlike the one before us. Nicholson v. Erie R. W. Co., 41 N. Y. 525; Murray v. McLean, 57 Ill. 378; Durham v. Musselman, 2 Blackf. 96 (18 Am. Dec. 133).

In the case of Sweeny v. Old Colony, &c. R. R. Co., 10 Allen, 368, the Court say:—

“A licensee, who enters on premises by permission only, without any enticement, allurement, or inducement being held out to him by the owner or occupant, cannot recover damages for injuries caused by obstructions or pitfalls. He goes there at his own risk, and enjoys the license subject to its concomitant perils.” Carleton v. Franconia Iron and Steel Co., 99 Mass. 216; Harris v. Stevens, 31 Vt. 79, 90; Wood v. Leadbitter, 13 M. & W. 838.

The evidence in this case brings it, we think, within the principles settled by the above cases.

The appellant contends that the evidence shows that the appellee was guilty of gross negligence in not repairing its freight house, and that such negligence renders it liable, though he entered upon its premises without invitation or license, as a mere intruder, and was, while such intruder, injured; and, in support of this proposition, we are referred to the following cases: Lafayette, &c. R. R. Co. v. Adams, 26 Ind. 76; Indianapolis, &c. R. R. Co. v. McClure, 26 Ind. 370; Gray v. Harris, 107 Mass. 492; Isabel v. Hannibal, &c. R. R. Co., 60 Mo. 475.

In the first of the above cases, the Court held that, where the negligence of the company was so gross as to imply a disregard of consequences or a willingness to inflict the injury, it was liable, though the party injured was not free from fault. In the second case, it was held that a railroad company, not required to fence its road, would not be liable for animals killed on its road, unless guilty of gross negligence. The phrase “gross negligence,” as used in these cases, means something more than the mere omission of duty; it meant, as shown by the evidence in the cases, reckless and aggressive conduct on the part of the company’s servants. “Something more than negligence, however gross, must be shown, to enable a party to recover for an injury, when he has been guilty of contributory negligence.” The Pennsylvania Co. v. Sinclair, 62 Ind. 301. There was, in the cases referred to in 26 Ind., something more than negligence. As in the case of The Indianapolis, &c. R. W. Co. v. McBrown, 46 Ind. 229, where the animal was driven through a deep cut, eighty rods long, into and upon a trestle work of the company, there was aggressive malfeasance. In the Massachusetts case, the Court held that a party building a dam across a stream must provide against unusual floods. We do not think these cases applicable to the one before us.

There could be no negligence on the part of the appellee, of which the appellant can be heard to complain, unless at the time he received the injury, the appellee was under some obligation or duty to him to repair its freight house. “Actionable negligence exists only where the one whose act causes or occasions the injury owes to the injured person a duty, created either by contract or by operation of law, which he has failed to discharge.” Pittsburgh, &c. R. W. Co. v. Bingham, supra; Burdeck v. Cheadle, 26 Ohio St. 393; Town of Salem v. Goller, 76 Ind. 291. We have shown that the appellee owed the appellant no such duty.

The judgment below should be affirmed.

Per Curiam. It is ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment below be affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.

BUCH v. AMORY MANUFACTURING CO. Supreme Court, New Hampshire, December, 1897. Reported in 69 New Hampshire Reports, 257.

Case. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. March 30, 1886, the plaintiff, then eight years of age and unable to speak or understand English, was injured by the machinery in operation in the defendants’ mill. The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff’s brother, who was thirteen years of age, was employed as a back-boy in the mule-spinning room, and that at his request the plaintiff went into the room for the purpose of learning the work of a back-boy. The elder brother had no authority to request or permit the plaintiff to go into the mill or to instruct him, unless it could be inferred from the fact testified to by him that “he saw other boys taking their brothers to learn, as he understood from their motions.” The plaintiff was in the mill for a day and a half until the accident, openly assisting more or less in the work of the back-boys. He testified that he was directed by a person not the overseer of the room, whom he saw “bossing” the other boys, to pick up some bobbins and put some waste in a box. There was evidence tending to show that Fulton, the overseer, who was in charge of and hired the back-boys and other operatives in the room, passed in the alleys near the plaintiff, and that he was well acquainted with his help. He testified that he had no knowledge of the plaintiff’s presence in the room until about two hours before the accident, when, aware that the boy was not an employee, he directed him to go out, and thinking he might not understand English, took him to an operative who spoke the plaintiff’s language, whom he told to send the plaintiff out. The plaintiff testified that Fulton spoke to him and, as he understood, directed him to remove his vest, but that he did not understand he was ordered to leave. There was no evidence except Fulton’s that the order was communicated to the plaintiff or understood by him. There was no evidence or claim that the machinery was improperly constructed or operated, or that it was out of repair. The plaintiff’s hand was caught in a gearing which the back-boys were instructed to avoid, but there was no evidence that the plaintiff was given any instruction or warning whatever. There was evidence tending to prove that boys under thirteen years of age were not employed in the room, and that the place and machinery were dangerous for a child of the plaintiff’s age. Subject to exception, a motion that a verdict be directed for the defendants was denied.

Carpenter, C. J. On the evidence, the jury could not properly find that the plaintiff was upon the premises of the defendants with their consent or permission. Although there was evidence tending to show that other back-boys had taken their brothers into the room for the purpose of instructing them in the business, there was no sufficient evidence that the fact that they did so was known to the defendants, and there was evidence that on the first occasion brought to their knowledge they objected. Upon this state of the evidence, a license by the defendants—whether material or immaterial—for the plaintiff’s presence in the room could not legitimately be inferred. The plaintiff was a trespasser.

The defendant’s machinery was in perfect order and properly managed. They were conducting their lawful business in a lawful way and in the usual and ordinary manner. During the plaintiff’s presence they made no change in the operation of their works or in their method of doing business. No immediate or active intervention on their part caused the injury. It resulted from the joint operation of the plaintiff’s conduct and the ordinary and usual condition of the premises. Under these circumstances, an adult in full possession of his faculties, or an infant capable of exercising the measure of care necessary to protect himself from the dangers of the situation, whether he was on the premises by permission or as a trespasser, could not recover.

The plaintiff was an infant of eight years. The particular circumstances of the accident—how or in what manner it happened that the plaintiff caught his hand in the gearing—are not disclosed by the case. It does not appear that any evidence was offered tending to show that he was incapable of knowing the danger from putting his hand in contact with the gearing, or of exercising a measure of care sufficient to avoid the danger. Such an incapacity cannot be presumed. Stone v. Railroad, 115 N. Y. 104, 109–111; Hayes v. Norcross, 162 Mass. 546, 548; Mulligan v. Curtis, 100 Mass. 512, 514; Cosgrove v. Ogden, 49 N. Y. 255, 258; Kunz v. Troy, 104 N. Y. 344, 351; Lovett v. Railroad, 9 Allen, 557, 563.

An infant is bound to use the reason he possesses and to exercise the degree of care and caution of which he is capable. If the plaintiff could by the due exercise of his intellectual and physical powers have avoided the injury, he is no more entitled to recover than an adult would be under the same circumstances. The burden was upon him, and the case might be disposed of upon the ground that he adduced no evidence tending to show that he had not sufficient reason and discretion to appreciate the particular risk of injury that he incurred and to avoid it. But it may be that evidence tending to show the plaintiff’s incapacity was adduced, and that the case is silent on the subject because this particular question was not made by the defendants.

Assuming, then, that the plaintiff was incapable either of appreciating the danger or of exercising the care necessary to avoid it, is he, upon the facts stated, entitled to recover? He was a trespasser in a place dangerous to children of his age. In the conduct of their business and management of their machinery the defendants were without fault. The only negligence charged upon or attributed to them is that, inasmuch as they could not make the plaintiff understand a command to leave the premises and ought to have known that they could not, they did not forcibly eject him.

Actionable negligence is the neglect of a legal duty. The defendants are not liable unless they owed to the plaintiff a legal duty which they neglected to perform. With purely moral obligations the law does not deal. For example, the priest and Levite who passed by on the other side were not, it is supposed, liable at law for the continued suffering of the man who fell among thieves, which they might and morally ought to have prevented or relieved. Suppose A, standing close by a railroad, sees a two-year-old babe on the track and a car approaching. He can easily rescue the child with entire safety to himself, and the instincts of humanity require him to do so. If he does not, he may, perhaps, justly be styled a ruthless savage and a moral monster; but he is not liable in damages for the child’s injury, or indictable under the statute for its death. P. S., c. 278, s. 8.

“In dealing with cases which involve injuries to children, courts ... have sometimes strangely confounded legal obligation with sentiments that are independent of law.” Indianapolis v. Emmelman, 108 Ind. 530. “It is important to bear in mind, in actions for injuries to children, a very simple and fundamental fact, which in this class of cases is sometimes strangely lost sight of, viz., that no action arises without a breach of duty.” 2 Thomp. Neg. 1183, note 3. “No action will lie against a spiteful man, who, seeing another running into danger, merely omits to warn him. To bring the case within the category of actionable negligence some wrongful act must be shown, or a breach of some positive duty; otherwise, a man who allows strangers to roam over his property would be held answerable for not protecting them against any danger they might encounter whilst using the license.” Gautret v. Egerton, L. R. 2 C. P. 371, 375.

What duties do the owners owe to a trespasser upon their premises? They may eject him, using such force and such only as is necessary for the purpose. They are bound to abstain from any other or further intentional or negligent acts of personal violence,—bound to inflict upon him by means of their own active intervention no injury which by due care they can avoid. They are not bound to warn him against hidden or secret dangers arising from the condition of the premises (Redigan v. Railroad, 155 Mass. 44, 47, 48), or to protect him against any injury that may arise from his own acts or those of other persons. In short, if they do nothing, let him entirely alone, in no manner interfere with him, he can have no cause of action against them for any injury that he may receive. On the contrary, he is liable to them for any damage that he by his unlawful meddling may cause them or their property. What greater or other legal obligation was cast on these defendants by the circumstance that the plaintiff was (as is assumed) an irresponsible infant?

If landowners are not bound to warn an adult trespasser of hidden dangers,—dangers which he by ordinary care cannot discover and, therefore, cannot avoid,—on what ground can it be claimed that they must warn an infant of open and visible dangers which he is unable to appreciate? No legal distinction is perceived between the duties of the owners in one case and the other. The situation of the adult in front of secret dangers which by no degree of care he can discover, and that of the infant incapable of comprehending danger, is in a legal aspect exactly the same. There is no apparent reason for holding that any greater or other duty rests upon the owners in one case than in the other.

There is a wide difference—a broad gulf—both in reason and in law, between causing and preventing an injury; between doing by negligence or otherwise a wrong to one’s neighbor, and preventing him from injuring himself; between protecting him against injury by another and guarding him from injury that may accrue to him from the condition of the premises which he has unlawfully invaded. The duty to do no wrong is a legal duty. The duty to protect against wrong is, generally speaking and excepting certain intimate relations in the nature of a trust, a moral obligation only, not recognized or enforced by law. Is a spectator liable if he sees an intelligent man or an unintelligent infant running into danger and does not warn or forcibly restrain him? What difference does it make whether the danger is on another’s land, or upon his own, in case the man or infant is not there by his express or implied invitation? If A sees an eight-year-old boy beginning to climb into his garden over a wall stuck with spikes and does not warn him or drive him off, is he liable in damages if the boy meets with injury from the spikes? Degg v. Railway, 1 H. & N. 773, 777. I see my neighbor’s two-year-old babe in dangerous proximity to the machinery of his windmill in his yard, and easily might, but do not, rescue him. I am not liable in damages to the child for his injuries, nor, if the child is killed, punishable for manslaughter by the common law or under the statute (P. S., c. 278, s. 8), because the child and I are strangers, and I am under no legal duty to protect him. Now suppose I see the same child trespassing in my own yard and meddling in like manner with the dangerous machinery of my own windmill. What additional obligation is cast upon me by reason of the child’s trespass? The mere fact that the child is unable to take care of himself does not impose on me the legal duty of protecting him in the one case more than in the other. Upon what principle of law can an infant by coming unlawfully upon my premises impose upon me the legal duty of a guardian? None has been suggested, and we know of none.

An infant, no matter of how tender years, is liable in law for his trespasses. 1 Ch. Pl. 86; 2 Kent, 241; Cool. Torts, 103; Poll. Torts, 46; 2 Add. Torts, 1126, 1153; 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 668, et seq.; Humphrey v. Douglass, 10 Vt. 71; School District v. Bragdon, 23 N. H. 507; Eaton v. Hill, 50 N. H. 235; Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 391; Williams v. Hays, 143 N. Y. 442, 446–451; Conklin v. Thompson, 29 Barb. 218; Neal v. Gillett, 23 Conn. 437; Huchting v. Engel, 17 Wis. 237. If, then, the defendants’ machinery was injured by the plaintiff’s act in putting his hand in the gearing, he is liable to them for the damages in an action of trespass and to nominal damages for the wrongful entry. It would be no answer to such an action that the defendants might by force have prevented the trespass. It is impossible to hold that while the plaintiff is liable to the defendants in trespass, they are liable to him in case for neglecting to prevent the act which caused the injury both to him and them. Cases of enticement, allurement, or invitation of infants to their injury, or setting traps for them, and cases relating to the sufficiency of public ways, or to the exposure upon them of machinery attractive and dangerous to children have no application here.

Danger from machinery in motion in the ordinary course of business cannot be distinguished from that arising from a well, pit, open scuttle, or other stationary object. The movement of the works is a part of the regular and normal condition of the premises. Sullivan v. Railroad, 156 Mass. 378; Holbrook v. Aldrich, 168 Mass. 15; Rodgers v. Lees, 140 Pa. St. 475. The law no more compels the owners to shut down their gates and stop their business for the protection of a trespasser than it requires them to maintain a railing about an open scuttle or to fence in their machinery for the same purpose. Benson v. Company, 77 Md. 535; Mergenthaler v. Kirby, 79 Md. 182. There was no evidence tending to show that the defendants neglected to perform any legal duty to the plaintiff. McGuiness v. Butler, 159 Mass. 233, 236, 238; Grindley v. McKechnie, 163 Mass. 494; Holbrook v. Aldrich, 168 Mass. 15, 17, and cases cited.

Verdict set aside: judgment for the defendants.

Parsons, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

KEFFE v. MILWAUKEE AND ST. PAUL RAILWAY CO. Supreme Court, Minnesota, January 11, 1875. Reported in 21 Minnesota Reports, 207.

The plaintiff, an infant, brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Ramsey County to recover damages for injuries sustained while playing upon a turn-table of defendant. The circumstances under which plaintiff was injured are thus stated in the complaint: “That in connection with said railroad” [of defendant] “defendant, before and up to the month of October, 1867, used and operated a certain turn-table, located on the lands of said defendant in said town of Northfield, which said turn-table was so constructed and arranged as to be easily turned around and made to revolve in a horizontal direction.”

After minutely describing the turn-table, the complaint proceeds: “That said turn-table was situated in a public place, near to a passenger depot of the defendant, and within 120 feet from the residence and home of plaintiff. That said turn-table was unfastened and in no way protected, fenced, guarded, or enclosed, to prevent it from being turned around at the pleasure of small children, although the same could at all times be readily locked and securely fastened.

“That said turn-table ... was in the possession and under the control of defendant, and not necessary in operating said railroad and it was the duty of said defendant to keep said turn-table fastened or in some way protected, so that children could not readily have access thereto and revolve the same. That the same was not so protected or fastened, and that said turn-table, when left unfastened, was very attractive to young children, and that while the same was being moved by children, and at all times when left unfastened, it was dangerous to persons upon or near it.

“That defendant had notice of all the aforesaid facts before and at the time the injury herein named occurred to the plaintiff.

“That plaintiff, on September 11, 1867, was a child of tender years, without judgment or discretion, he being at that date seven years old, and that in consequence of the carelessness, negligence, and improper conduct of said defendant, in not locking, enclosing, or otherwise fastening said turn-table, and by the negligence, carelessness, and improper conduct of said defendant, its agents, and servants, in allowing said turn-table to be and remain unfastened, insecure, and improperly put in motion, it was, at the date last aforesaid, revolved by other children, over whom the parents and guardians of plaintiff had no control, and without their knowledge, and, while being so revolved, the plaintiff, being on said turn-table, had his right leg caught near the knee, between the surface of said turn-table and said abutment or wall, and between the iron rail on said turn-table and the iron rail on said abutment or wall, and said leg was thereby so bruised, broken, mangled, and fractured, as to render amputation necessary.”

The complaint further alleges that the injury was caused by defendant’s negligence, and without any fault or negligence on the part of the plaintiff, or his parents or guardians, etc.

The defendant having answered the complaint, and the action having been called for trial, the defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was granted by Hall, J., and judgment entered accordingly, from which plaintiff appealed.

Bigelow, Flandrau & Clark, for respondent, relied on the opinion of Hall, J., and the cases therein cited.

Young, J. In the elaborate opinion of the Court below, which formed the basis of the argument for the defendant in this Court, the case is treated as if the plaintiff was a mere trespasser, whose tender years and childish instincts were no excuse for the commission of the trespass, and who had no more right than any other trespasser to require the defendant to exercise care to protect him from receiving injury while upon its turn-table. But we are of opinion that, upon the facts stated in the complaint, the plaintiff occupied a very different position from that of a mere voluntary trespasser upon the defendant’s property, and it is therefore unnecessary to consider whether the proposition advanced by the defendant’s counsel, viz., that a landowner owes no duty of care to trespassers, is not too broad a statement of a rule which is true in many instances.

To treat the plaintiff as a voluntary trespasser is to ignore the averments of the complaint, that the turn-table, which was situate in a public (by which we understand an open, frequented) place, was, when left unfastened, very attractive, and, when put in motion by them, was dangerous to young children, by whom it could be easily put in motion, and many of whom were in the habit of going upon it to play. The turn-table, being thus attractive, presented to the natural instincts of young children a strong temptation; and such children, following, as they must be expected to follow, those natural instincts, were thus allured into a danger whose nature and extent they, being without judgment or discretion, could neither apprehend nor appreciate, and against which they could not protect themselves. The difference between the plaintiff’s position and that of a voluntary trespasser, capable of using care, consists in this, that the plaintiff was induced to come upon the defendant’s turn-table by the defendant’s own conduct, and that, as to him, the turn-table was a hidden danger,—a trap.

While it is held that a mere licensee “must take the permission with its concomitant conditions,—it may be perils,” Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 731; Bolch v. Smith, 7 H. & N. 836, yet even such licensee has a right to require that the owner of the land shall not knowingly and carelessly put concealed dangers in his way. Bolch v. Smith, per Channell and Wilde, BB.; Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 556, per Willes, J.

And where one goes upon the land of another, not by mere license, but by invitation from the owner, the latter owes him a larger duty. “The general rule or principle applicable to this class of cases is that an owner or occupant is bound to keep his premises in a safe and suitable condition for those who come upon and pass over them, using due care, if he has held out any inducement, invitation, or allurement, either express or implied, by which they have been led to enter thereon.” Per Bigelow, C. J., in Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport R. Co., 10 Allen, 368, reviewing many cases. And see Indermaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. P. 274; L. R. 2 C. P. 311.

Now, what an express invitation would be to an adult, the temptation of an attractive plaything is to a child of tender years. If the defendant had left this turn-table unfastened for the purpose of attracting young children to play upon it, knowing the danger into which it was thus alluring them, it certainly would be no defence to an action by the plaintiff, who had been attracted upon the turn-table and injured, to say that the plaintiff was a trespasser, and that his childish instincts were no excuse for his trespass. In Townsend v. Wathen, 9 East, 277, it was held to be unlawful for a man to tempt even his neighbor’s dogs into danger, by setting traps on his own land, baited with strong-scented meat, by which the dogs were allured to come upon his land and into his traps. In that case, Lord Ellenborough asks, “What is the difference between drawing the animal into the trap by his natural instinct, which he cannot resist, and putting him there by manual force?” And Grose, J. says “A man must not set traps of this dangerous description in a situation to invite his neighbor’s dogs, and, as it were, to compel them by their instinct to come into the traps.”

It is true that the defendant did not leave the turn-table unfastened for the purpose of injuring young children; and if the defendant had no reason to believe that the unfastened turn-table was likely to attract and to injure young children, then the defendant would not be bound to use care to protect from injury the children that it had no good reason to suppose were in any danger. But the complaint states that the defendant knew that the turn-table, when left unfastened, was easily revolved; that, when left unfastened, it was very attractive, and when put in motion by them, dangerous, to young children; and knew also that many children were in the habit of going upon it to play. The defendant therefore knew that by leaving this turn-table unfastened and unguarded, it was not merely inviting young children to come upon the turn-table, but was holding out an allurement, which, acting upon the natural instincts by which such children are controlled, drew them by those instincts into a hidden danger; and having thus knowingly allured them into a place of danger, without their fault (for it cannot blame them for not resisting the temptation it has set before them), it was bound to use care to protect them from the danger into which they were thus led, and from which they could not be expected to protect themselves.

We agree with the defendant’s counsel that a railroad company is not required to make its land a safe playground for children. It has the same right to maintain and use its turn-table that any landowner has to use his property. It is not an insurer of the lives or limbs of young children who play upon its premises. We merely decide that when it sets before young children a temptation which it has reason to believe will lead them into danger, it must use ordinary care to protect them from harm. What would be proper care in any case must, in general, be a question for the jury, upon all the circumstances of the case.

The position we have taken is fully sustained by the following cases, some of which go much farther in imposing upon the owner of dangerous articles the duty of using care to protect from injury children who may be tempted to play near or meddle with them, than it is necessary to go in this case. Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 Q. B. 29; Birge v. Gardiner, 19 Conn. 507; Whirley v. Whiteman, 1 Head, 610.

It is true that, in the cases cited, the principal question discussed is not whether the defendant owed the plaintiff the duty of care, but whether the defendant was absolved from liability for breach of duty by reason of the fact that the plaintiff was a trespasser, who, by his own act, contributed to the injury; and the distinction is not sharply drawn between the effect of the plaintiff’s trespass, as a bar to his right to require care, and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, as a bar to his right to recover for the defendant’s failure to exercise such care as it was his duty to use. But as a young child, whom the defendant knowingly tempts to come upon his land, if anything more than a technical trespasser, is led into the commission of the trespass by the defendant himself, and thus occupies a position widely different from that of an ordinary trespasser, the fact that the Courts, in the cases referred to, assumed, instead of proving, that the defendant owed to a young child, under such circumstances, a duty he would not owe to an ordinary trespasser, for whose trespass he was not in any way responsible, does not weaken the authority of those cases. And in Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657 (a case in all respects similar to the present), the distinction insisted on by counsel is taken by Mr. Justice Hunt, and the circumstance that the plaintiff was in some sense a trespasser is held not to exempt the defendant from the duty of care. In the charge of the learned circuit judge at the trial of the last named case (reported under the title of Stout v. Sioux City & Pacific R. Co., 2 Dillon, 294), the elements which must concur to render the defendant liable, in a case like the present, are clearly stated.

In Hughes v. Macfie, 2 Hurlst. & Coltm. 744, and Mangan v. Atterton, L. R. 1 Exch. 239, cited by defendant’s counsel, there was nothing to show that the defendants knew or had reason to apprehend that the cellar lid in the one case, or the crushing machine in the other, would be likely to attract young children into danger. It must be conceded that Hughes v. Macfie is not easily to be reconciled with Birge v. Gardiner, and that Mangan v. Atterton seems to conflict with Lynch v. Nurdin; but whether correctly decided or otherwise, they do not necessarily conflict with our decision in this case.

Much reliance is placed by defendant on Phila. & Reading R. Co. v. Hummell, 44 Penn. St. 375 and Gillis v. Penn. R. Co., 59 Penn. St. 129. In the first of these cases, the plaintiff, a young child, was injured by coming upon the track while the cars were in motion. The only negligence charged upon the defendant was the omission to give any signal at or after the starting of the train. If the plaintiff had been crossing the track, through one of the openings which the company had suffered the people in the neighborhood to make in the train while standing on the track, and the cars had then been run together upon him, without any warning, the case would more nearly resemble the present; but the facts, as they appear, show that the company used abundant care, and that it had no reason to suppose that the plaintiff was exposed to danger; and the decision is put upon the latter ground, although Strong, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, uses language which lends some support to the defendant’s contention in this case. Gillis v. Penn. R. Co. was properly decided, on the ground that the company did nothing to invite the plaintiff upon the platform, by the fall of which he was injured, and that the platform was strong enough to bear the weight of any crowd of people which the company might reasonably expect would come upon it. Neither of these cases is an authority against, while a later case in the same court, Kay v. Penn. R. Co., 65 Penn. St. 269, tends strongly to support, the plaintiff’s right of action in this case; and the recent case of Pittsburg, A. & M. Passenger R. Co. v. Caldwell, 74 Penn. St. 421, points in the same direction.

It was not urged upon the argument that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and we have assumed that the plaintiff exercised, as he was bound to do, such reasonable care as a child of his age and understanding was capable of using, and that there was no negligence on the part of his parents or guardians, contributing to his injury.

Judgment reversed.

FROST v. EASTERN RAILROAD Supreme Court, New Hampshire, December, 1886. Reported in 64 New Hampshire Reports, 220.

Case, for personal injuries from the alleged negligence of the defendants in not properly guarding and securing a turn-table. The plaintiff, who sues by his father and next friend, was seven years old when the accident occurred, June 23, 1877, and the action was commenced June 7, 1884. Plea, the general issue and statute of limitations. A motion for a nonsuit was denied, and the defendants excepted. Verdict for the plaintiff. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.

Clark, J. The action is not barred by the statute of limitations. “Any infant, married woman, or insane person may bring any personal actions within two years after such disability is removed.” G. L., c. 221, s. 7.

As a general rule, in cases where a disability exists when the right of action accrues, the statute does not run during the continuance of the disability, and it has not commenced to run against the plaintiff. Pierce v. Dustin, 24 N. H. 417; Little v. Downing, 37 N. H. 356. It is said that the plaintiff’s next friend was under no disability, that he could have brought the action at any time within six years after the right of action accrued, and therefore the statute should apply to this case. It is an answer to this suggestion that it is the infant’s action, and the failure of the next friend to bring suit within six years is no bar to the plaintiff’s right of action. Wood Lim. of Act. 476.

The motion for a nonsuit raises the question whether there was evidence upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for the plaintiff. Paine v. Railway, 58 N. H. 611. The ground of the action is, that the defendants were guilty of negligence in maintaining a turn-table insecurely guarded, which, being wrongfully set in motion by older boys, caused an injury to the plaintiff, who was at that time seven years old, and was attracted to the turn-table by the noise of the older and larger boys turning and playing upon it. The turn-table was situated on the defendants’ land, about sixty feet from the public street, in a cut with high, steep embankments on each side; and the land on each side was private property and fenced. It was fastened by a toggle, which prevented its being set in motion unless the toggle was drawn by a lever, to which was attached a switch padlock, which being locked prevented the lever from being used unless the staple was drawn. At the time of the accident the turn-table was fastened by the toggle, but it was a controverted point whether the padlock was then locked. When secured by the toggle and not locked with the padlock, the turn-table could not be set in motion by boys of the age and strength of the plaintiff.

Upon these facts we think the action cannot be maintained. The alleged negligence complained of relates to the construction and condition of the turn-table, and it is not claimed that the defendants were guilty of any active misconduct towards the plaintiff. The right of a landowner in the use of his own land is not limited or qualified like the enjoyment of a right or privilege in which others have an interest, as the use of a street for highway purposes under the general law, or for other purposes under special license (Moynihan v. Whidden, 143 Mass. 287), where care must be taken not to infringe upon the lawful rights of others. At the time of his injury the plaintiff was using the defendants’ premises as a playground without right. The turn-table was required in operating the defendants’ railroad. It was located on its own land so far removed from the highway as not to interfere with the convenience and safety of the public travel, and it was not a trap set for the purpose of injuring trespassers. Aldrich v. Wright, 53 N. H. 404. Under these circumstances, the defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff; and there can be no negligence or breach of duty where there is no act or service which the party is bound to perform or fulfil. A landowner is not required to take active measures to insure the safety of intruders, nor is he liable for an injury resulting from the lawful use of his premises to one entering upon them without right. A trespasser ordinarily assumes all risk of danger from the condition of the premises; and to recover for an injury happening to him he must show that it was wantonly inflicted, or that the owner or occupant, being present and acting, might have prevented the injury by the exercise of reasonable care after discovering the danger. Clark v. Manchester, 62 N. H. 577; State v. Railroad, 52 N. H. 528; Sweeny v. Railroad, 10 Allen, 368; Morrissey v. Railroad, 126 Mass. 377; Severy v. Nickerson, 120 Mass. 306; Morgan v. Hallowell, 57 Me. 375; Pierce v. Whitcomb, 48 Vt. 127; McAlpin v. Powell, 70 N. Y. 126; St. L., V. & T. H. R. R. Co. v. Bell, 81 Ill. 76; Gavin v. Chicago, 97 Ill. 66; Wood v. School District, 44 Iowa, 27; Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. St. 74; Cauley v. P. C., & St. Louis Railway Co., 95 Pa. St. 398; Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Pa. St. 144; Mangan v. Atterton, L. R. 1 Ex. 239. The maxim that a man must use his property so as not to incommode his neighbor, only applies to neighbors who do not interfere with it or enter upon it. Knight v. Abert, 6 Pa. St. 472. To hold the owner liable for consequential damages happening to trespassers from the lawful and beneficial use of his own land would be an unreasonable restriction of his enjoyment of it.

We are not prepared to adopt the doctrine of Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, and cases following it, that the owner of machinery or other property attractive to children is liable for injuries happening to children wrongfully interfering with it on his own premises. The owner is not an insurer of the safety of infant trespassers. One having in his possession agricultural or mechanical tools is not responsible for injuries caused to trespassers by careless handling, nor is the owner of a fruit-tree bound to cut it down or enclose it, or to exercise care in securing the staple and lock with which his ladder is fastened, for the protection of trespassing boys who may be attracted by the fruit. Neither is the owner or occupant of premises upon which there is a natural or artificial pond, or a blueberry pasture, legally required to exercise care in securing his gates and bars to guard against accidents to straying and trespassing children. The owner is under no duty to a mere trespasser to keep his premises safe; and the fact that the trespasser is an infant cannot have the effect to raise a duty where none otherwise exists. “The supposed duty has regard to the public at large, and cannot well exist as to one portion of the public and not to another, under the same circumstances. In this respect children, women, and men are upon the same footing. In cases where certain duties exist, infants may require greater care than adults, or a different kind of care; but precautionary measures having for their object the protection of the public must as a rule have reference to all classes alike.” Nolan v. N. Y. N. H. & H. Railroad Co., 53 Conn. 461.

There being no evidence to charge the defendants with negligence, the motion for a nonsuit should have been granted.

Exceptions sustained.

COOKE v. MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY OF IRELAND In the House of Lords, March 1, 1909. Reported in [1909] Appeal Cases, 229.

The appellant by his father brought an action against the respondents for an injury sustained on the company’s land in Meath under the circumstances stated in the head-note, the details of which are fully discussed in the judgments in this House. At the trial before Lord O’Brien, C. J., the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £550, and judgment was entered accordingly. The jury found that the fence was in a defective condition through the negligence of the defendants; that the plaintiff was allured through the hedge and up to the turn-table by the negligence of the defendants; and that it was by reason of the defendants’ negligence and as the effective cause of it that the misfortune occurred. That judgment was affirmed by the King’s Bench Division in Ireland (Palles, C. B., and Johnson, J., Kenny, J., dissenting) and was afterwards set aside by the Court of Appeal in Ireland (Sir S. Walker, L. C., FitzGibbon and Holmes, L.JJ.). Hence this appeal by the plaintiff.

Lord Macnaghten. My Lords, the only question before your Lordships is this: Was there evidence of negligence on the part of the company fit to be submitted to the jury? If there was, the verdict must stand, although your Lordships might have come to a different conclusion on the same materials.

I cannot help thinking that the issue has been somewhat obscured by the extravagant importance attached to the gap in the hedge, both in the arguments of counsel and in the judgments of some of the learned judges who have had the case under consideration. That there was a gap there, that it was a good broad gap some three feet wide, is, I think, proved beyond question. But of all the circumstances attending the case it seems to me that this gap taken by itself is the least important. I have some difficulty in believing that a gap in a roadside fence is a strange and unusual spectacle in any part of Ireland. But however that may be, I quite agree that the insufficiency of the fence, though the company were bound by Act of Parliament to maintain it, cannot be regarded as the effective cause of the accident.

The question for the consideration of the jury may, I think, be stated thus: Would not a private individual of common sense and ordinary intelligence, placed in the position in which the company were placed, and possessing the knowledge which must be attributed to them, have seen that there was a likelihood of some injury happening to children resorting to the place and playing with the turn-table, and would he not have thought it his plain duty either to put a stop to the practice altogether, or at least to take ordinary precautions to prevent such an accident as that which occurred?

This, I think, was substantially the question which the Lord Chief Justice presented to the jury. It seems to me to be in accordance with the view of the Court of Queen’s Bench in Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 Q. B. 29, and the opinion expressed by Romer and Stirling, L.JJ., in McDowall v. Great Western Ry. Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 331.

The Lord Chancellor of Ireland puts Lynch v. Nurdin, 1 Q. B. 29, aside. He holds that it bears no analogy to the present case, because the thing that did the mischief there was a “cart in the public street—a nuisance.” But no question of nuisance was considered in Lynch v. Nurdin. That point was not suggested. The ground of the decision is a very simple proposition. “If,” says Lord Denman, “I am guilty of negligence in leaving anything dangerous in a place where I know it to be extremely probable that some other person will unjustifiably set it in motion to the injury of a third, and if that injury should be so brought about, I presume that the sufferer might have redress by action against both or either of the two, but unquestionably against the first.” If that proposition be sound, surely the character of the place, though, of course, an element proper to be considered, is not a matter of vital importance. It cannot make very much difference whether the place is dedicated to the use of the public or left open by a careless owner to the invasion of children who make it their playground.

I think the jury were entitled and bound to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case—the mode in which the turn-table was constructed; its close proximity to the wall by which the plaintiff’s leg was crushed; the way in which it was left, unfenced, unlocked, and unfastened; the history of this bit of ground and its position, shut off as it was by an embankment from the view of the company’s servants at the station, and lying half derelict. After the construction of the embankment it served no purpose in connection with the company’s undertaking, except that at one time a corner of it was used as a receptacle for some timber belonging to the company, and afterwards as a site for this turn-table. In other respects, and apart from these uses, it seems to have been devoted or abandoned to the sustenance of the railway inspector’s goat and the diversion of the youth of Navan. It is proved that in spite of a notice board idly forbidding trespass it was a place of habitual resort for children, and that children were frequently playing with the timber, and afterwards with the turn-table. At the date of the trial, twelve months after the accident, a beaten path leading from the gap bore witness both to the numbers that flocked to the spot and to the special attraction that drew children to it. It is remarkable that not a single word of cross-examination as to either of these points was addressed to the principal witnesses for the plaintiff, Tully, the herd, and Gertrude Cooke, the plaintiff’s sister; nor was any explanation or evidence offered on the part of the company. Now the company knew, or must be deemed to have known, all the circumstances of the case and what was going on. Yet no precaution was taken to prevent an accident of a sort that might well have been foreseen and very easily prevented. They did not close up the gap until after the accident. Then it was the first thing thought of. But it was too late. They did not summon any of the children who played there, or bring them before the magistrates, as a warning to trespassers and a proof that they were really in earnest in desiring to stop an objectionable practice which had gone on so long and so openly. They did not have their turn-table locked automatically in the way in which Mr. Barnes, C. E., whose evidence is uncontradicted, says it is usual to lock such machines. The table, it seems, was not even fastened. There was a bolt; but if Cooke, the father of the plaintiff, is to be believed, the bolt was rusty and unworkable. The jury were not bound to believe Fowler, a ganger in the service of the company, in preference to Cooke. Fowler, after some incautious admissions which the jury probably accepted as true, turned round and showed himself, as the Chief Justice says, to be hostile to the plaintiff. He prevaricated to such an extent that the jury were justified in disregarding everything said by him with the view of shielding his employers or saving himself from blame, whether it came out of his own head, as the nonsense he talked about rat-holes, or was suggested by counsel, as the expression of “hunting” children off the ground.

It seems to me that the Chief Justice would have been wrong if he had withdrawn the case from the jury. I think the jury were entitled, in view of all the circumstances, on the evidence before them, uncontradicted as it was, to find that the company were guilty of negligence. I am therefore of opinion that the finding of the jury should be upheld and the judgment under appeal reversed, with pauper costs here and costs below; and I move your Lordships accordingly.

I will only add that I do not think that this verdict will be followed by the disastrous consequences to railway companies and landowners which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland seems to apprehend. Persons may not think it worth their while to take ordinary care of their own property, and may not be compellable to do so; but it does not seem unreasonable to hold that, if they allow their property to be open to all comers, infants as well as children of maturer age, and place upon it a machine attractive to children and dangerous as a plaything, they may be responsible in damages to those who resort to it with their tacit permission, and who are unable, in consequence of their tender age, to take care of themselves.

BOLCH v. SMITH In the Exchequer, January 30, 1862. Reported in 7 Hurlstone & Norman, 736.

Action to recover for damage occurring as hereinafter stated. Pleas: first, not guilty; second, various special pleas. Issues thereon.

At the trial, before Channell, B., at the last Hampshire Summer Assizes, the following facts appeared: The plaintiff was a millwright employed in the Government dock-yard at Portsmouth. The defendant was a contractor, and had been engaged for some time in enlarging one of the docks. The men employed in the dock-yard were not allowed to leave it during the day, and water-closets had been built for their use. For the purpose of going to these water-closets, they had permission to use certain paths which crossed the dock-yard. The defendant had been permitted to erect a mortar-mill for the purpose of his work, and he built an engine-house on one side of one of these paths and the mortar-mill on the other side of the path. A revolving shaft which connected the engine with the mill was placed across the path about six inches above the level of the ground. This shaft was partly covered with a few planks not joined together, and forming an incline upwards from the ground, so that a barrow could be wheeled over it. The shaft had been on that spot covered or uncovered for five years. The plaintiff had gone along this path to one of the water-closets, and whilst returning he accidentally stumbled when near the shaft, which was in rapid motion, and on reaching out his hand to save himself his left arm was caught by the shaft, and so much lacerated that it was necessary to amputate it. There were two other paths by which the plaintiff might have reached the water-closet; but the one he used was the shortest and most convenient.

In the course of the defendant’s case it appeared that the shaft had been fenced to some extent but not sufficiently.

At the close of the defendant’s case, the learned judge proposed to leave it to the jury to assess the damages, supposing the plaintiff had a right of action, and then to nonsuit the plaintiff, reserving leave for him to move to set aside the nonsuit, and enter the verdict for the amount assessed by the jury. The plaintiff’s counsel declined to accede to this course; whereupon the learned judge left it to the jury to say: first, whether the plaintiff was lawfully using the way in question on the day of the accident; secondly, whether the defendant was guilty of negligence in leaving the shaft in the state it was on that day. The jury answered both questions in the affirmative, and they added that they found “that the shaft was not sufficiently fenced;” and they assessed the damages at 230l. A verdict having been entered for the plaintiff for that amount.

Coleridge, in last Michaelmas Term, obtained a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground that the learned judge misdirected the jury in not telling them that there was no obligation on the part of the defendant to fence the shaft; and also that the verdict was against the evidence.

Channell, B. I am of opinion that the rule must be absolute for a new trial. [Remainder of opinion omitted.]

Martin, B. I am of the same opinion. The real objection to this action is that the plaintiff has failed to establish that there was any obligation or duty on the part of the defendant to have this path in any other condition than it was at the time of the accident. That should have been established in some way. If the plaintiff could have shown any such obligation on the part of the defendant he would have made out a case, but that was a condition precedent, and the plaintiff has wholly failed to do so. The defendant had a right to erect the machinery, to erect it in the place he did, and to work it in the manner he was doing.

Then what is the true condition of the plaintiff? It is said that he had a right to go along the path across which the machinery was erected, for he was a workman employed in the dock-yard, and had liberty to use the water-closet. But that is a fallacious argument. It is true the plaintiff had permission to use the path. Permission involves leave and license, but it gives no right. If I avail myself of permission to cross a man’s land, I do so by virtue of a license, not of a right. It is an abuse of language to call it a right: it is an excuse or license, so that the party cannot be treated as a trespasser. Inasmuch as there was another way by which the plaintiff might have gone, but voluntarily chose the one which was out of order, I think he has no right of action against the defendant, and that he ought to have been nonsuited at the trial.

Wilde, B. I am of the same opinion. It is of importance in all these cases that the facts upon which the decisions are based should be made plain. The plaintiff was one of a number of persons who obtained leave and license from the dock-yard authorities to cross the yard from one place to another. The defendant had permission from the same authorities to put up certain machinery in the yard. The plaintiff while walking along the usual track fell down, not by reason of any obstruction, but in consequence of stumbling, and in trying to save himself, his arm came in contact with a revolving shaft and was lacerated.

I will decide the case as if it were a question between the plaintiff and the owners of the yard, because if they are not responsible for putting up the shaft, a fortiori the defendant is not. Then, was there any obligation on the owners of the yard not to put up machinery that might be dangerous to persons crossing it? None of the facts tend to show that any such obligation existed. If what was put up was an obstruction to any person who used that way, the only consequence would be that he would have to go another way. That being so, it appears to me that this action cannot lie, because I agree that it is founded upon a duty, and none exists.

That disposes of the case; but I will add that I do not mean to say that if the defendant had made a hole in the yard, and had covered it in a way that was insufficient, but which appeared to be sufficient, he would not have been liable. But here there was nothing of that character. The danger was open and visible. There was nothing which could be called a “trap.”

Pollock, C. B., concurred.

Rule absolute for a new trial.

GAUTRET v. EGERTON In the Common Pleas, February 11, 1867. Reported in Law Reports, 2 Common Pleas, 371.

The declaration in the first of these actions stated that the defendants were possessed of a close of land, and of a certain canal and cuttings intersecting the same, and of certain bridges across the said canal and cuttings, communicating with and leading to certain docks of the defendants, which said land and bridges had been and were from time to time used with the consent and permission of the defendants by persons proceeding towards and coming from the said docks; that the defendants, well knowing the premises, wrongfully, negligently, and improperly kept and maintained the said land, canal, cuttings, and bridges, and suffered them to continue and be in so improper a state and condition as to render them dangerous and unsafe for persons lawfully passing along and over the said land and bridges towards the said docks, and using the same as aforesaid; and that Leon Gautret, whilst he was lawfully in and passing and walking along the said close and over the said bridge, and using the same in the manner and for the purpose aforesaid, by and through the said wrongful, negligent, and improper conduct of the defendants as aforesaid, fell into one of the said cuttings of the defendants, intersecting the said close as aforesaid, and thereby lost his life within twelve calendar months next before the suit: and the plaintiff, as administratrix, for the benefit of herself, the widow of the said Leon Gautret, and A. Gautret, &c., according to the statute in such case made and provided, claimed 2,500l.

The defendants demurred to the declaration, on the ground that “it does not appear that there was any legal duty or obligation on the part of the defendants to take means for preventing the said land, &c., being dangerous and unsafe.” Joinder.

Crompton (Mellish, Q. C., with him), in support of the demurrer.—To maintain this action, the declarations ought to show a duty in the defendants to keep the canal, cuttings, and bridges in a safe condition, and also that some invitation had been held out to the deceased to come there, and that the thing complained of constituted a sort of trap. Seymour v. Maddox, 16 Q. B. 326 (E. C. L. R. vol. 71), 19 L. J. Q. B. 525; Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. N. S. 556 (E. C. L. R. vol. 93), 27 L. J. C. P. 318. The declaration is entirely wanting in all these particulars. It is not enough to show that the defendants were aware that the place in question was in an unsafe condition, and that the public were in the habit of passing along it. Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. N. S. 731, 29 L. J. C. P. 203.

[Willes, J. The declaration does not even state that the deceased persons were unacquainted with the state of the place.]

Herschell, for the plaintiff Gautret.—The question raised upon this declaration is, whether there is any duty on the part of the defendants toward persons using their land as the deceased here did. That may be negligence in the case of a licensee, which would not be negligence as against a mere trespasser: and, if there can be any case in which the law would imply a duty, it is sufficiently alleged here.

[Willes, J. It may be the duty of the defendants to abstain from doing any act which may be dangerous to persons coming upon the land by their invitation or permission, as in Indermaur v. Dames, Law Rep. 1 C. P. 274. So, if I employ one to carry an article which is of a peculiarly dangerous nature, without cautioning him, I may be responsible for any injury he sustains through the absence of such caution. That was the case of Farrant v. Barnes, 11 C. B. N. S. 553, 31 L. J. C. P. 137. But, what duty does the law impose upon these defendants to keep their bridges in repair? If I dedicate a way to the public which is full of ruts and holes, the public must take it as it is. If I dig a pit in it, I may be liable for the consequences: but, if I do nothing, I am not.]

It was not necessary to specify the nature of the negligence which is charged: it was enough to allege generally a duty and a breach of it. Knowing the bridge to be unsafe, it was the duty of the defendants not to permit the public to use it. In Bolch v. Smith, 7 H. & N. 736, 31 L. J. Ex. 201, the defect in the fencing of the shaft was apparent: but the judgments of Channell and Wilde, BB., seem to concede that, if there had been a concealed defect, the action would have been maintainable. That shows that there is some duty in such a case as this.

Potter, for the plaintiff Jones, submitted that the implied request on the part of the defendants to persons having occasion to go to the docks to pass by the way in question, raised a duty in them to keep it in a safe condition.

Willes, J. I am of opinion that our judgment must be for the defendants in each of these cases. The argument urged on behalf of the plaintiffs, when analyzed, amounts to this, that we ought to construe the general words of the declaration as describing whatever sort of negligence the plaintiffs can prove at the trial. The authorities, however, and reason and good sense, are the other way. The plaintiff must, in his declaration, give the defendant notice of what his complaint is. He must recover secundum allegata et probata. What is it that a declaration of this sort should state in order to fulfil those conditions? It ought to state the facts upon which the supposed duty is founded, and the duty to the plaintiff with the breach of which the defendant is charged. It is not enough to show that the defendant has been guilty of negligence, without showing in what respect he was negligent, and how he became bound to use care to prevent injury to others. All that these declarations allege is, that the defendants were possessed of land, and of a canal and cuttings intersecting the same, and of certain bridges across the canal and cuttings communicating with and leading to certain docks of theirs; that they allowed persons going to and from the docks, whether upon the business or for the profit of the defendants or not, to pass over the land; and that the deceased persons, in pursuance of and using that permission, fell into one of the cuttings, and so met their deaths. The consequences of these accidents are sought to be visited upon these defendants, because they have allowed persons to go over their land, not alleging it to have been upon the business or for the benefit of the defendants, or as the servants or agents of the defendants; nor alleging that the defendants have been guilty of any wrongful act, such as digging a trench on the land, or misrepresenting its condition, or anything equivalent to laying a trap for the unwary passengers; but simply because they permitted these persons to use a way with the condition of which, for anything that appears, those who suffered the injury were perfectly well acquainted. That is the whole sum and substance of these declarations. If the docks to which the way in question led were public docks, the way would be a public way, and the township or parish would be bound to repair it, and no such liability as this could be cast upon the defendants merely by reason of the soil of the way being theirs. That is so not only in reason but also upon authority. It was so held in Robbins v. Jones, 15 C. B. N. S. 221, 33 L. J. C. P. 1, where a way having been for a number of years dedicated to the public, we held that the owner of the adjoining house was not responsible for death resulting to a person from the giving way of the pavement, partly in consequence of its being over-weighted by a number of persons crowding upon it, and partly from its having been weakened by user. Assuming that these were private docks, the private property of the defendants, and that they permitted persons going to or coming from the docks, whether for their own benefit or that of the defendants, to use the way, the dedication of a permission to use the way must be taken to be in the character of a gift. The principle of law as to gifts is, that the giver is not responsible for damage resulting from the insecurity of the thing, unless he knew its evil character at the time, and omitted to caution the donee. There must be something like fraud on the part of the giver before he can be made answerable. It is quite consistent with the declarations in these cases that this land was in the same state at the time of the accident that it was in at the time the permission to use it was originally given. To create a cause of action, something like fraud must be shown. No action will lie against a spiteful man who, seeing another running into a position of danger, merely omits to warn him. To bring the case within the category of actionable negligence, some wrongful act must be shown, or a breach of some positive duty: otherwise, a man who allows strangers to roam over his property would be held to be answerable for not protecting them against any danger which they might encounter whilst using the license. Every man is bound not wilfully to deceive others, or do any act which may place them in danger. It may be, as in Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. N. S. 556, 27 L. J. C. P. 318, that he is responsible if he puts an obstruction on the way which is likely to cause injury to those who by his permission use the way; but I cannot conceive that he could incur any responsibility merely by reason of his allowing the way to be out of repair. For these reasons, I think these declarations disclose no cause of action against the defendants, and that the latter are therefore entitled to judgment.

Keating, J. I am of the same opinion. It is not denied that a declaration of this sort must show a duty and a breach of that duty. But it is said that these declarations are so framed that it would be necessary for the plaintiffs at the trial to prove a duty. I am, however, utterly unable to discover any duty which the defendants have contracted towards the persons whom the plaintiffs represent, or what particular breach of duty is charged. It is said that the condition of the land and bridges was such as to constitute them a kind of trap. I cannot accede to that. The persons who used the way took it with all its imperfections.

Herschell asked and obtained leave to amend within ten days, on payment of costs; otherwise judgment for the defendants.

Judgment accordingly.

CAMPBELL v. BOYD Supreme Court, North Carolina, February Term, 1883. Reported in 88 North Carolina Reports, 129.

Civil action tried at Fall Term, 1882, of Beaufort Superior Court, before Gilliam, J.

The defendant appealed.

Smith, C. J. The defendant owns and operates a mill, that has been built and used for one hundred years, at the head of Pungo creek. A few yards below its site the creek divides, and its waters flow in two separate streams. Along its course on either side run parallel public roads each two miles distant, and from them have been constructed private ways leading up to and meeting at the mill, and affording convenient access from the roads to it. One of these ways was opened by former proprietors, and the other in the year 1867, by the defendant.

In 1875 or 1876, the defendant, with other owners of the intervening land, united in opening a connecting way, between those leading from the public roads, from near points in each, so as to form a direct passway across the two divergent streams from one road to the other, without going up to the mill. Over these waters they also constructed bridges. While this direct route was opened mainly for the convenience of the defendant and his associates, whose lands were traversed, it was also used as well by the public with full knowledge of the defendant, and without objection from any one in passing between the roads.

In February, 1882, the plaintiff, with his horse, while in the use of this connecting way and passing one of the bridges, broke through, and both were precipitated into the creek, and the damage sustained for the redress of which the suit is brought.

The flooring of the bridge was sound, and there was no visible indication of weakness or decay to put a person passing over it on his guard. But the timbers underneath, and hidden by the floor, were in a rotten and unsound condition, and of this the defendant had full knowledge before the disaster.

He was at his mill and saw what occurred, and going up to the place remarked to the plaintiff that when he saw him about to enter the bridge he thought of calling him to stop, but did not do so; that the bridge was unsafe, and he regretted he did not stop the plaintiff from crossing.

These are the material facts found by the judge, under the consent of parties that he should pass upon the evidence and ascertain the facts of the case, and our only inquiry is upon the correctness of his ruling that the defendant is liable in damages to the plaintiff, and from which the defendant appeals.

The only case in our reports bearing upon the point is that of Mulholland v. Brownrigg, 2 Hawks, 349. There, the defendant’s millpond overflowed parts of the public road, and hollow bridges had been erected, but by whom, did not appear; nor was it shown that they were built at the expense of the public. This condition of things had existed for twenty years, and the mill had been owned and operated by the defendant for the space of five years. The successive mill proprietors had kept the overflowed bed of the road and the bridges in repair. The plaintiff’s wagon, loaded with goods, passing a bridge, broke through, in consequence of its decayed state, and the goods were injured by the water. The action was for this injury. It was declared by the Court that as a nuisance was created by the flooding of the road, and the defendant had undertaken to remedy it in constructing the bridges, it was his duty, as that of preceding proprietors of the mill, to maintain them in a proper condition of repair, and ensure the safety of those persons who in using the road had to pass over them, and that the damage having resulted from his negligence he was liable to the plaintiff. The proposition is asserted, that inasmuch as the defendant has undertaken to remedy a nuisance of his own creating, by constructing the bridge, he undertakes also and is bound to keep it in sufficient repair, and is answerable for the consequences of his neglect to do so.

The principle of law, in more general terms and with a wider scope, is thus expressed by Hoar, J., in Combs v. New Bed. Con. Co., 102 Mass. 584. “There is another class of cases in which it has been held that, if a person allows a dangerous place to exist in premises occupied by him, he will be responsible for injury caused thereby, to any other person entering upon the premises by his invitation and procurement, express or implied, and not notified of the danger, if the person injured is in the use of due care.”

“The principle is well settled,” remarks Appleton, C. J., “that a person injured, without neglect on his part, by a defect or obstruction in a way or passage over which he has been induced to pass for a lawful purpose, by an invitation express or implied, can recover damages for the injury sustained, against the individual so inviting, and being in default for the neglect.” Tobin v. P. S. & P. R. R., 59 Maine, 188.

Several illustrations of the principle in its different applications will be found in Wharton on Negligence, § 826, and following.

The facts of the present case bring it within the rule thus enunciated. The way was opened by the defendant and his associates; primarily, though it was for his and their accommodation, yet, permissively, to the general travelling public. It has, in fact, been thus used, and known to the defendant to be thus used, with the acquiescence of himself and the others; and under these circumstances it may fairly be assumed to be an invitation to all who have occasion thus to use it; and hence a voluntary obligation is incurred to keep the bridges in a safe condition, so that no detriment may come to travellers.

Reparation is an inseparable incident of its construction, and, as the obligation to repair rests on no other, the liability for neglect must rest on those who put the bridges there and invited the public to use them.

It is true the way might have been closed, or the public prohibited by proper notices from passing over it, and no one could complain of the exercise of the right to do so; but as long as the way is left open and the bridges remain for the public to use, it is incumbent on those who constructed and maintain them to see that they are safe for all.

The law does not tolerate the presence over and along a way in common use, of structures apparently sound, but in fact ruinous, like man-traps, inviting travellers to needless disaster and injury. The duty of reparation should rest on some one, and it can rest on none others but those who built and used the bridges, and impliedly at least invite the public to use them also. For neglect of this duty they must abide the consequences.

We hold, therefore, that there is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.

No error.

Affirmed.

GALLAGHER v. HUMPHREY In the Queen’s Bench, June 14, 1862. Reported in 6 Law Times Reports, New Series, 684; S. C. 10 Weekly Reporter, 664.

Declaration. That the defendant was possessed of a crane fixed upon the New Hibernia Wharf, in a certain passage called Montague Close, Southwark, along which passage the plaintiff and others were permitted to pass, repass, and use the same as a way to certain wharves; that the crane was used by the defendant and his servants to raise and lower goods over the passage; that the plaintiff was, with the permission of the proprietors of the passage, lawfully passing along the said passage to the said wharves; yet the defendant, by himself and his servants, so negligently, &c. managed, directed, and conducted themselves that by and through such neglect, &c., a part of said crane broke, whilst the defendant, by his servants, was using the same, and certain goods fell upon the plaintiff whilst he was passing along, &c. and broke both his legs, &c.

Pleas: 1. Not guilty. 2. That the plaintiff and others were not permitted by the proprietors of the said passage to pass, repass, and use the said passage as a way from a highway to certain wharves, as in the declaration charged. 3. That the plaintiff was not, with the permission of the proprietors of the said passage, lawfully passing along the said passage from the said highway to the said wharves, as in the declaration alleged.

Issue on the said pleas.

At the trial before Blackburn, J., at the Croydon Summer Assizes, 1861, it was proved that the plaintiff, the son of a laborer employed in the erection of West Kent Wharf, under a contractor for the defendant’s father, had, on the day when the accident happened, taken his father’s dinner, according to his usual custom, to West Kent Wharf, and on his return was obliged to pass under a crane erected on the defendant’s (Hibernia) wharf, and there employed in lowering barrels of sugar. As he was passing the chain broke, and 12 cwt. of sugar fell upon him, inflicting the injuries complained of. The breakage of the chain was caused by negligence in the mode of applying the breaks, for, after the sugar had been attached the chain of the crane was allowed to run, and then the man suddenly put on the break and the jerk caused the weight to rise and fall and the chain to break. Montague Close is approached by steps from London Bridge, the gate to which was usually opened very early in the morning, and numbers of persons, to the knowledge of the defendant, used to pass along the passage, and no objection was made to persons using the way if on legitimate business. The judge left the following questions to the jury: 1st, Was the accident caused by the negligence of the defendant, or was it a pure accident over which no one could have any control? 2d, Could the boy by reasonable care have avoided the accident? 3d, Were the plaintiff and others permitted to go up Montague Close by the owners? 4th, Did the defendant on the evidence as disclosed tacitly give permission to the plaintiff to pass that way? 5th, Was the boy going to the wharf for a legitimate purpose? The jury having answered all the questions in favor of the plaintiff, a verdict was entered for him, with leave for the defendant to move to set it aside and enter a verdict on the second and third issues. The damages were assessed at £100.

A rule nisi having been obtained calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict should not be entered for the defendant on the second and third issues,—

Shee, Serjt., (Grady with him,) showed cause. On the form of the rule as obtained the plaintiff is clearly entitled to succeed, as there was evidence that the defendant did by his acts tacitly give permission to the boy to pass along the close for a lawful purpose, and the jury have so found. But the plaintiff is also entitled to succeed on the broader ground. In Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. N. S. 556, it was held that the defendant was liable for the negligence of his servant in placing materials in a dangerous position, and without notice, on a private road along which persons were accustomed to pass by leave of the owners; and in Southcote v. Stanley, 25 L. J. 339, Ex., a visitor to a person’s house was held entitled to recover for injuries caused by opening a glass door which was insecure, and which it was necessary for him to open. (He was then stopped by the Court.)

Petersdorff, Serjt., (Bridge with him,) in support of the rule. Montague Close was the defendant’s private property, and no one had any right to be there without his express or implied permission. The lowering heavy goods from the warehouses by cranes is a manifestly dangerous business, and persons using the way took upon themselves whatever risks might be incidental to that business. In Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. N. S. 743, where the defendant was held not to be liable for leaving a quarry unfenced on waste land across which the public were allowed to pass, Williams, J., said: “No right is averred, but merely that the owners allowed persons, for diversion or business, to go across the waste without complaint; that is, that they were not so churlish as to interfere with any one who went across. But a person so using the waste has no right to complain of any excavation he may find there; he must accept the permission with its concomitant conditions, and it may be its perils.” [Blackburn, J. Have you any authority that persons so using the way take upon themselves the negligence of the servants about the place?] In Bolch v. Smith, 31 L. J. 201, Ex., where workmen employed in a dock-yard were permitted to use a place as a way on which revolving machinery had been erected, it was held that the right so to use the place was only the right not to be treated as a trespasser, and that there was no obligation to fence the machinery, and no liability for insufficiently fencing it. [Cockburn, C. J. There was the ordinary state of things in that case, and no superadded negligence.]

Cockburn, C. J. I doubt whether on the pleadings and this rule it is competent to enter into the question of negligence, and whether the whole matter does not turn upon the question whether permission was or was not given to the plaintiff to pass along the way. But I should be sorry to decide this case upon that narrow ground. I quite agree that a person who merely gives permission to pass and repass along his close is not bound to do more than allow the enjoyment of such permissive right under the circumstances in which the way exists; that he is not bound, for instance, if the way passes along the side of a dangerous ditch or along the edge of a precipice, to fence off the ditch or precipice. The grantee must use the permission as the thing exists. It is a different question, however, where negligence on the part of the person granting the permission is superadded. It cannot be that, having granted permission to use a way subject to existing dangers, he is to be allowed to do any further act to endanger the safety of the person using the way. The plaintiff took the permission to use the way subject to a certain amount of risk and danger, but the case assumes a different aspect when the negligence of the defendant—for the negligence of his servants is his—is added to that risk and danger. The way in question was a private one leading to different wharves. On part of the way a wharf was being constructed or repaired, and the plaintiff’s father was employed upon that work. It was the father’s habit not to go home to his meals, and the boy used to take them to him at the wharf, and on this occasion was passing along carrying his father’s dinner. The plaintiff was therefore passing along on a perfectly legitimate purpose, and the evidence is that the defendant permitted the way to be used by persons having legitimate business upon the premises. That being so, the defendant places himself by such permission under the obligation of not doing anything by himself or his servants from which injury may arise, and if by any act of negligence on the part of himself or his servants injury does arise, he is liable to an action. That is the whole question. The plaintiff is passing along the passage by permission of the defendant, and though he could only enjoy that permission under certain contingencies, yet when injury arises not from any of those contingencies, but from the superadded negligence of the defendant, the defendant is liable for that negligence as much as if it had been upon a public highway.

Wightman, J. The rule in this case was obtained on a very narrow ground. The declaration having alleged that the plaintiff and others were permitted to pass, repass, and use the way in question, and that the plaintiff was there with the permission of the proprietors of the passage lawfully passing along the passage, the defendant took issue on the fact whether such right to pass along the passage was permitted by the defendant. I think that there was evidence to show that the plaintiff had the permission of the defendant to use the way, and that he was lawfully there at the time of the accident. I entirely agree with my Lord Chief Justice that the plaintiff is also entitled to succeed on the larger ground. It appears to me that such a permission as is here alleged may be subject to the qualification that the person giving it shall not be liable for injuries to persons using the way arising from the ordinary state of things, or of the ordinary nature of the business carried on; but that is distinguishable from the case of injuries wholly arising from the negligence of that person’s servants.

Crompton, J. I am of the same opinion. I think we should look not only to the grounds upon which this rule was granted, but to the real defence set up by my brother Petersdorff. That defence is, in effect, that the plaintiff was using the way only under the qualified permission that he should be subject to any negligence of the plaintiff or his servants. If that defence be sustainable upon the general issue, or otherwise, we should see whether it is made out, and I am of opinion that it is not made out. I quite agree with what has fallen from my Lord and my brother Wightman. There may be a public dedication of a way, or a private permission to use it subject to a qualification; for example, subject to the danger arising from a stone step or a projecting house; and in such a case the public, or the persons using the way, take the right to use it subject to such qualification; but they are not thereby to be made subject to risks from what may be called active negligence. Whenever a party has a right to pass over certain ground, if injury occurs to him while so passing from negligence, he has a right to compensation. The argument of my brother Petersdorff fails therefore upon this ground. I think, too, that it is doubtful whether even the fact that the injured person was present unlawfully would excuse negligence, though it would be an element in determining what is negligence, and what is not. In the present case, however, that question does not arise, as there is no doubt the plaintiff was there upon a legitimate errand.

Blackburn, J. I am of the same opinion. If the substantial defence raised existed I am not sure but what it could be raised under the present pleadings, and the leave reserved; but at any rate I think we could amend the pleadings, if necessary, to raise it. But I do not think that any such defence exists here. The plaintiff seeks to recover for the negligence of the defendant. Now, the existence of negligence depends upon the duty of the party charged with it. I concur with the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in Bolch v. Smith that, when permission is given to a person to pass through a yard where dangerous machinery is at work, no duty is cast upon the person giving such permission to fence the machinery against the person permitted so to pass. That decision does not touch the present case, which falls rather within the remark then made by my brother Wilde: “If persons in the condition of the defendant had left anything like a trap in route used on the premises, I am far from saying they would not be liable.” This is more like the case of Corby v. Hill, where the matter placed upon the road is called a trap set for persons using it; and it is clear that when one gives another permission to pass over his land, it is his duty not to set a trap for him. Here the boy was passing upon a legitimate errand while the defendant’s servants were employed in lowering weights. If he had sustained any injury by a weight descending, without any negligence of the defendant’s servants, there is no doubt that he could not recover, but he suffered through the negligence of the persons lowering the bags, who were well aware that people were in the habit of passing below, and that danger would arise if the chain broke. I think, therefore, that it was the duty of the defendant and his servants to use ordinary care that the chain should not break. The jury have found that they neglected that duty, and I do not disagree with their finding. Our decision does not conflict with the judgment of the Court of Exchequer in Bolch v. Smith, or of the Common Pleas in Hounsell v. Smyth.

Rule discharged.

CARSKADDON v. MILLS In the Appellate Court, Indiana, May Term, 1892. Reported in 5 Indiana Appellate Court Reports, 22.

Action for damage to plaintiff’s horse. Trial by the court. The case made by plaintiff’s evidence was in substance as follows:—

Defendant purchased a lot of land in October, 1890. Across this lot ran a road leading from one street to another, having a well-defined track made by wagons, horses, etc. The road was not a public highway, but had been used by the travelling public generally for a period of from five to fifteen years. Defendant’s lot was not fenced on the front and rear, the direction in which the road ran, but was fenced on the sides. After building a house on the lot, defendant “informed” the people travelling over this roadway not to use it any longer for such purpose; but no heed was paid to this. In the latter part of December, 1890, in order the more effectually to stop the travel over the lot, the defendant stretched a strand of barbed wire across the rear end of the lot, about three feet above the ground and at right angles, or nearly so, with said road. The entire fence was upon the appellee’s lot. No notice of any kind was given of this obstruction otherwise than as it advertised itself. The wire could not be seen in the dark of night and only a short distance—twenty to twenty-five feet—in daylight. There were no posts that could be seen from the road in the night when the accident hereinafter alluded to occurred. The appellant, who lived in that community, had frequently travelled over the road leading across this lot, and had no notice or knowledge of its being closed up with the wire. The last time before the accident when he passed over the lot was in September or October, 1890. At about 6 o’clock on the evening of January 1, 1891, after it had become too dark to see this wire, the appellant attempted to drive across this lot, in the road, to perform some legitimate errand on the other side. Not knowing of the presence of the wire, he drove his horse briskly ahead of him until the animal came up suddenly against the barbs, cutting a gash in its front leg four to five inches in length and two inches deep, severing the frontal muscle, from which the horse was injured, to the damage of the appellant.

When the appellant had closed his evidence, the learned judge observed that he had examined the law of the case, and saw no reason why a man could not fence in his own land, on his own ground, and that, [if] “a travelling man over such property taking the license into his own hand, without invitation or inducement, because others do so, suffers injury, he must put up with it.”

The judge ruled that plaintiff’s evidence did not make out a prima facie right to recover; and found for defendant; denying plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. Plaintiff appealed.

Reinhard, C. J. [The learned judge said that a license may be created either by parol or by acquiescence in the use of the property for the purpose in question without objection. He held that plaintiff was prima facie a licensee, and not a trespasser.]

A mere license, however, to travel over the land of another may be revoked at any time at the pleasure of the licensor. Parish v. Kaspar, 109 Ind. 586; Simpson v. Wright, 21 Ill. App. 67; 13 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 555.

Where the license is once proved, however, or a prima facie case of such license has been made out, it then devolves upon the party asserting a revocation to prove it. Blunt v. Barrett, 54 N. Y. Sup. 548.

Consequently if the license in the present case was claimed to have been discontinued or revoked, the burden was upon appellees to show that fact.

Was such revocation established, or was there any evidence from which the court could infer the same?

The transfer of the property, or the fencing of the same, may, under ordinary circumstances, be sufficient to amount to a revocation. Ordinarily a man has a right to use his own property as he pleases, but at the same time this gives him no right to use it to the detriment or injury of his neighbor. We think the erection of an ordinary fence around the lot, one that was not calculated to inflict injury, was proper and right, and it was the privilege of the appellees to thus close up their premises without asking of any one the permission to do so. But whenever they undertook to inclose their property under circumstances that made it dangerous to those likely to pass over it, and which the appellees must anticipate would incur injury by it, it became their duty, if such dangerous means must be employed to accomplish the purpose, to give some sort of warning.

Thus it was held in Houston, etc., R. W. Co. v. Boozer, 70 Tex. 530, that if the owner of the land has been accustomed to permit others to use his property to travel over to such an extent as to produce a confident belief that the use will not be objected to, he must not mislead them by failing to give a proper warning of his intention to recall the permission. See, also, Cornish v. Stubbs, 5 L. R. C. P. 334; Mellor v. Watkins, L. R. 9 Q. B. 400.

While we grant the clear right of the appellees to revoke the license, we assert as emphatically that they must do so in a manner not calculated under ordinary circumstances to inflict injury unnecessarily. Although a licensee acquires no interest, as the term is usually employed, nor property right in the real estate over which he is allowed to travel, he yet has the right not to be wilfully or even recklessly injured by the acts of the owner. It cannot be said truthfully that the owner does not owe some duty to a licensee.

At the time of the stretching of the wire the appellees must have known that the public would continue to travel over this lot until in some way prevented from doing so. They must have known further that a single strand of wire, without posts at the roadside, or other means calculated to attract the attention of passers-by, could not be seen in the dark, and was a dangerous obstruction, liable to injure those coming in contact with it. They must, therefore, have anticipated just such results as the one that happened to the appellant. It was their clear duty, consequently, in case they desired to make use of the dangerous wire, to shut out the public from going over their lot, to give some warning by which the presence of the wire might be detected. Had they used an ordinary fence, one constructed out of material not necessarily dangerous to life and limb even if encountered in the dark, the case might be otherwise, and notice might not have been necessary. But the stretching of the barbed wire, without notice, under the circumstances was, we think, a plain violation of duty.

The case made by the evidence is one of more than mere passive negligence. In that class of cases it is well enough settled that there is no liability to a mere licensee. Thus where the owner of premises inadvertently leaves unguarded a pit, hatchway, trap-door, cistern, or other dangerous opening, and one who is present merely by permission and not by invitation, express or implied, falls into the opening and is injured, he cannot recover, as, in such case, he enjoys the license subject to the risks. Thiele v. McManus, 3 Ind. App. 132. But while an owner may not be liable to one who is thus injured by mere inattention and neglect of the owner, there could be no doubt of his liability if it were shown that the obstruction was placed there purposely to keep the licensee from entering the premises, or for the very purpose of inflicting injury if an attempt be made to cross. As well might an owner give permission to his neighbor to travel over his field and then set a trap to hurt him.

Where the owner of ground digs a pit or erects other dangerous obstructions at a place where it is probable that persons or animals may go and become injured, without using proper care to guard the same, it is well settled in this state that there is a liability, and that the owner must respond in damages for any injury incurred by such negligence. Young v. Harvey, 16 Ind. 314; Graves v. Thomas, 95 Ind. 361; Mayhew v. Burns, 103 Ind. 328; Penso v. McCormick, 125 Ind. 116.

A barbed wire fence is not of itself an unlawful one, and the building of such along a public highway is not necessarily a negligent act; but yet, even in such case as that, there may be circumstances under which a person building such a fence, in a negligent manner, will be held liable for damages caused thereby. Sisk v. Crump, 112 Ind. 504. All these cases proceed upon the assumption that the party whose negligence caused the injury owed the other some duty which he failed to perform, for, after all, negligence is nothing more nor less than the failure to discharge some legal duty or obligation.

Even trespassers have some rights an owner is bound to respect. If a person, without permission, should attempt to cross the field of another, and tramp down his growing grain, it would not be contended, we apprehend, that this gave the owner any right to kill the trespasser, or even to seriously injure him unnecessarily. The use of spring guns, traps, and other devices to catch and injure trespassing persons or animals has been condemned both in this country and in England. Hooker v. Miller, 37 Iowa, 613; Deane v. Clayton, 7 Taunt. 489. If such means may not be employed against trespassers, we do not see upon what principle it can be held that it is proper to use them against one who has a permissive right to go upon the property where they are placed.

While in the case at bar there may be no proof of intentional injury, the facts, we think, bring the case within the principle declared in Young v. Harvey, supra; Graves v. Thomas, supra; Penso v. McCormick, supra; and Sisk v. Crump, supra.

The court should have sustained the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

INDERMAUR v. DAMES In the Common Pleas, February 26, 1866. Reported in Law Reports, 1 Common Pleas, 274.

The judgment of the Court (Erle, C. J., Willes, Keating, and Montague Smith, JJ.) was delivered by

Willes, J. This was an action to recover damages for hurt sustained by the plaintiff’s falling down a shaft at the defendant’s place of business, through the actionable negligence, as it was alleged, of the defendant and his servants.

At the trial before the Lord Chief Justice at the sittings here after Michaelmas Term, the plaintiff had a verdict for 400l. damages, subject to leave reserved.

A rule was obtained by the defendant in last term to enter a nonsuit, or to arrest the judgment, or for a new trial because of the verdict being against the evidence.

The rule was argued during the last term, before Erle, C. J., Keating and Montague Smith, JJ., and myself, when we took time to consider. We are now of opinion that the rule ought to be discharged.

It appears that the defendant was a sugar-refiner, at whose place of business there was a shaft four feet three inches square, and twenty-nine feet three inches deep, used for moving sugar. The shaft was necessary, usual, and proper in the way of the defendant’s business. Whilst it was in use, it was necessary and proper that it should be open and unfenced. When it was not in use, it was sometimes necessary, with reference to ventilation, that it should be open. It was not necessary that it should, when not in use, be unfenced; and it might then without injury to the business have been fenced by a rail. Whether it was usual to fence similar shafts when not in use did not distinctly appear; nor is it very material, because such protection was unquestionably proper, in the sense of reasonable, with reference to the safety of persons having a right to move about upon the floor where the shaft in fact was, because in its nature it formed a pitfall there. At the time of the accident it was not in use, and it was open and unfenced.

The plaintiff was a journeyman gas-fitter in the employ of a patentee who had supplied the defendant with his patent gas-regulator, to be paid for upon the terms that it effected a certain saving: and, for the purpose of ascertaining whether such a saving had been effected, the plaintiff’s employer required to test the action of the regulator. He accordingly sent the plaintiff to the defendant’s place of business for that purpose; and, whilst the plaintiff was engaged upon the floor where the shaft was, he (under circumstances as to which the evidence was conflicting, but) accidentally, and, as the jury found, without any fault or negligence on his part, fell down the shaft, and was seriously hurt.

It was argued, that, as the defendant had objected to the plaintiff’s working at the place upon a former occasion, he (the plaintiff) could not be considered as having been in the place with the defendant’s leave at the time of the accident: but the evidence did not establish a peremptory or absolute objection to the plaintiff’s being employed, so as to make the sending of him upon the occasion of the accident any more against the defendant’s will than the sending of any other workman: and the employment, and the implied authority resulting therefrom to test the apparatus were not of a character involving personal preference (dilectus personæ), so as to make it necessary that the patentee should himself attend. It was not suggested that the work was not journeyman’s work.

It was also argued that the plaintiff was at best in the condition of a bare licensee or guest who, it was urged, is only entitled to use the place as he finds it, and whose complaint may be said to wear the color of ingratitude, so long as there is no design to injure him: see Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. N. S. 371, 29 L. J. (C. P.) 203.

We think this argument fails, because the capacity in which the plaintiff was there was that of a person on lawful business, in the course of fulfilling a contract in which both the plaintiff and the defendant had an interest, and not upon bare permission. No sound distinction was suggested between the case of the servant and the case of the employer, if the latter had thought proper to go in person; nor between the case of a person engaged in doing the work for the defendant pursuant to his employment, and that of a person testing the work which he had stipulated with the defendant to be paid for if it stood the test; whereby impliedly the workman was to be allowed an on-stand to apply that test, and a reasonable opportunity of doing so. Any duty to enable the workman to do the work in safety, seems equally to exist during the accessory employment of testing: and any duty to provide for the safety of the master workman, seems equally owing to the servant workman whom he may lawfully send in his place.

It is observable, that, in the case of Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247, 25 L. J. (Ex.) 339, upon which much reliance was properly placed for the defendant, Alderson, B., drew the distinction between a bare licensee and a person coming on business, and Bramwell, B., between active negligence in respect of unusual danger known to the host and not to the guest, and a bare defect of construction or repair, which the host was only negligent in not finding out or anticipating the consequence of.

There is considerable resemblance, though not a strict analogy, between this class of cases and those founded upon the rule as to voluntary loans and gifts, that there is no remedy against the lender or giver for damage sustained from the loan or gift, except in case of unusual danger known to and concealed by the lender or giver. Macarthy v. Younge, 6 H. & N. 329, 30 L. J. (Ex.) 227. The case of the carboy of vitriol was one in which this Court held answerable the bailor of an unusually dangerous chattel, the quality of which he knew, but did not tell the bailee, who did not know it, and, who as a proximate consequence of his not knowing, and without any fault on his part, suffered damage.

The cases referred to as to the liability for accidents to servants and persons employed in other capacities in a business or profession which necessarily and obviously exposes them to danger, as in Seymour v. Maddox, 16 Q. B. 326, also have their special reasons. The servant or other person so employed is supposed to undertake not only all the ordinary risks of the employment into which he enters, but also all extraordinary risks which he knows of and thinks proper to incur, including those caused by the misconduct of his fellow-servants, not however including those which can be traced to mere breach of duty on the part of the master. In the case of a statutory duty to fence, even the knowledge and reluctant submission of the servant who has sustained an injury, are held to be only elements in determining whether there has been contributory negligence: how far this is the law between master and servant, where there is danger known to the servant, and no statute for his protection, we need not now consider, because the plaintiff in this case was not a servant of the defendant, but the servant of the patentee. The question was adverted to, but not decided, in Clarke v. Holmes, 7 H. & N. 937, 31 L. J. (Ex.) 356.

The authorities respecting guests and other bare licensees, and those respecting servants and others who consent to incur a risk, being therefore inapplicable, we are to consider what is the law as to the duty of the occupier of a building with reference to persons resorting thereto in the course of business, upon his invitation, express or implied. The common case is that of a customer in a shop: but it is obvious that this is only one of a class; for, whether the customer is actually chaffering at the time, or actually buys or not, he is, according to an undoubted course of authority and practice, entitled to the exercise of reasonable care by the occupier to prevent damage from unusual danger, of which the occupier knows or ought to know, such as a trap-door left open, unfenced, and unlighted: Lancaster Canal Company v. Parnaby, 11 Ad. & E. 223, 3 P. & D. 162; per cur. Chapman v. Rothwell, E. B. & E. 168, 27 L. J. (Q. B.) 315, where Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247, 25 L. J. (Ex.) 339, was cited, and the Lord Chief Justice, then Erle, J., said: “The distinction is between the case of a visitor (as the plaintiff was in Southcote v. Stanley), who must take care of himself, and a customer, who, as one of the public, is invited for the purposes of business carried on by the defendant.” This protection does not depend upon the fact of a contract being entered into in the way of the shopkeeper’s business during the stay of the customer, but upon the fact that the customer has come into the shop in pursuance of a tacit invitation given by the shopkeeper, with a view to business which concerns himself. And, if a customer were, after buying goods, to go back to the shop in order to complain of the quality, or that the change was not right, he would be just as much there upon business which concerned the shopkeeper, and as much entitled to protection during this accessory visit, though it might not be for the shopkeeper’s benefit, as during the principal visit, which was. And if, instead of going himself, the customer were to send his servant, the servant would be entitled to the same consideration as the master.

The class to which the customer belongs includes persons who go not as mere volunteers, or licensees, or guests, or servants, or persons whose employment is such that danger may be considered as bargained for, but who go upon business which concerns the occupier, and upon his invitation, express or implied.

And, with respect to such a visitor at least, we consider it settled law, that he, using reasonable care on his part for his own safety, is entitled to expect that the occupier shall on his part use reasonable care to prevent damage from unusual danger which he knows or ought to know; and that, where there is evidence of neglect, the question whether such reasonable care has been taken, by notice, lighting, guarding or otherwise, and whether there was contributory negligence in the sufferer, must be determined by a jury as matter of fact.

In the case of Wilkinson v. Fairrie, 1 H. & C. 633, 32 L. J. (Ex.) 73, relied upon for the defendant, the distinction was pointed out between ordinary accidents, such as falling down stairs, which ought to be imputed to the carelessness or misfortune of the sufferer, and accidents from unusual, covert danger, such as that of falling down into a pit.

It was ably insisted for the defendant that he could only be bound to keep his place of business in the same condition as other places of business of the like kind, according to the best known mode of construction. And this argument seems conclusive to prove that there was no absolute duty to prevent danger, but only a duty to make the place as little dangerous as such a place could reasonably be, having regard to the contrivances necessarily used in carrying on the business. But we think the argument is inapplicable to the facts of this case: first, because it was not shown, and probably could not be, that there was any usage never to fence shafts; secondly, because it was proved, that, when the shaft was not in use, a fence might be resorted to without inconvenience; and no usage could establish that what was in fact unnecessarily dangerous was in law reasonably safe, as against persons towards whom there was a duty to be careful.

Having fully considered the notes of the Lord Chief Justice, we think there was evidence for the jury that the plaintiff was in the place by the tacit invitation of the defendant, upon business in which he was concerned; that there was by reason of the shaft unusual danger known to the defendant; and that the plaintiff sustained damage by reason of that danger, and of the neglect of the defendant and his servants to use reasonably sufficient means to avert or warn him of it: and we cannot say that the proof of contributory negligence was so clear that we ought on this ground to set aside the verdict of the jury.

As for the argument that the plaintiff contributed to the accident by not following his guide, the answer may be that the guide, knowing the place, ought rather to have waited for him; and this point, as matter of fact, is set at rest by the verdict.

For these reasons, we think there was evidence of a cause of action in respect of which the jury were properly directed; and, as every reservation of leave to enter a nonsuit carries with it an implied condition that the Court may amend, if necessary, in such a manner as to raise the real question, leave ought to be given to the plaintiff, in the event of the defendant desiring to appeal or to bring a writ of error, to amend the declaration by stating the facts as proved,—in effect, that the defendant was the occupier of and carried on business at the place; that there was a shaft, very dangerous to persons in the place, which the defendant knew and the plaintiff did not know; that the plaintiff, by invitation and permission of the defendant, was near the shaft, upon business of the defendant, in the way of his own craft as a gas-fitter, for hire, &c., stating the circumstances, the negligence, and that by reason thereof the plaintiff was injured. The details of the amendment can, if necessary, be settled at chambers.

As to the motion to arrest the judgment, for the reasons already given, and upon condition that an amendment is to be made if and when required by the defendant, it will follow the fate of the motion to enter a nonsuit.

The other arguments for the defendant, to which we have not particularly adverted, were no more than objections to the verdict as being against the evidence: but it would be wrong to grant a new trial without a reasonable expectation that another jury might take a different view of the facts; and, as the Lord Chief Justice does not express any dissatisfaction with the verdict, the rule upon this, the only remaining ground, must also be discharged.

Rule discharged.

Affirmed in Exchequer Chamber, L. R. 2 C. P. 311.

McNEE v. COBURN TROLLEY TRACK COMPANY Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, February 24, 1898. Reported in 170 Massachusetts Reports, 283.

Tort, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by the fall of an elevator upon which he was riding while in the defendant’s employ. Trial in the Superior Court, before Mason, C. J., who directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; and reported the case for the determination of this court. If the case should have been submitted to the jury, judgment was to be entered for the plaintiff in a sum named; otherwise, judgment on the verdict. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

The case was submitted on briefs to all the justices.

Allen, J. The general condition of the elevator was such that a jury might find that the defendant would be negligent in continuing its use for carrying workmen up and down while engaged in their work, if this was done without warning them of the risk. It is true that the particular defect which caused the accident was not open to observation or easy to discover. But there was evidence tending to show that the accident was caused by the use of the elevator while it was in a condition which rendered it unsuitable for use, and that the defendant was fairly put upon inquiry as to its safety; and that the defendant’s duty in this respect was different from and greater than that of the workmen themselves.

The question then remains whether the posting of the notices in the elevator showed such a performance by the defendant of its duty of warning or cautioning the workmen, or such contributory negligence or assumption of the risk on the part of the plaintiff, as to entitle the defendant to have the case withdrawn from the jury. While upon the evidence reported a verdict for the defendant would be more satisfactory, we are unable to hold that the defendant was entitled to such verdict as a matter of law. As a general rule, the sufficiency of such warning or caution is a question of fact for the jury. Indermaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. P. 274; S. C. L. R. 2 C. P. 311. It is true that the plaintiff was not at liberty to shut his eyes in order to avoid reading a plain notice of warning. If it be assumed that the plaintiff must be held chargeable with a knowledge of the contents of the notice, or at least that the defendant performed its duty of cautioning the workmen by posting the notices in the elevator, we think the plaintiff still had the right to go to the jury upon the question whether the notices remained in force at the time of the accident, or had become a dead letter. There was evidence tending to show that the notices were put in the elevator a long time before the accident by a former treasurer whose connection with the company had then ceased, that they had become soiled and somewhat indistinct and torn, and that all of the defendant’s workmen, including the general superintendent of the building, were in the regular habit of using the elevator to carry them up and down, and had been so for some months prior to the accident. There was room for a legitimate argument that the defendant could not have intended to keep such a rule in force forever, and to furnish an elevator for permanent use by the men at their own sole risk; and that the defendant expected the men to use it while they were engaged in its work, and that it was for the defendant’s advantage that they should do so, from the saving of time thereby secured. It might be found that the plaintiff, even if he knew of the terms of the notice, might nevertheless assume that its force had ceased.

If one who has posted a notice of entire prohibition permits it to be habitually disregarded, as, for instance, a notice not to ride on the platform of a street railway car, or in the baggage car of a train, a practical invitation to violate it may be inferred from habitual usage which is known to him. Long continued practice to the contrary may have the effect to supersede or show a waiver of the rule. O’Donnell v. Allegheny Valley Railroad, 59 Penn. St. 239; Pennsylvania Railroad v. Langdon, 92 Penn. St. 21; Waterbury v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 17 Fed. Rep. 671. The notice in the present case was not one of entire prohibition, but, in the opinion of a majority of the court, the plaintiff upon the evidence had a right to go to the jury upon the question whether it still remained in force; and, according to the terms of the report, there must be

Judgment for the plaintiff.

GARFIELD COAL CO. v. ROCKLAND LIME CO. Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, June 23, 1903. Reported in 184 Massachusetts Reports, 60.

Tort, by the owner of the coal barge Western Belle, for injury to that vessel by grounding on a ledge of rock embedded in the mud at the bottom of the defendant’s dock at Rockland, Maine.

In the Superior Court the case was tried by a judge without a jury.

“It appeared at the trial that defendant was part owner of a dock, and used it for the discharge of cargoes of coal consigned to it. Plaintiff had sold coal to the defendant, and sent it a barge loaded therewith.”

The plaintiff requested the judge to make certain rulings, including the following:—

“4. It is not necessary for the plaintiff to show that the defendant knew of the ledge; it is sufficient if its existence could have been discovered by reasonable diligence.”

The judge refused to make any of the rulings, and found for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted.

Lathrop, J.... The general rules of law which are applicable in cases of this character are the same in England and in this country, and are the same at common law and in admiralty. They are as well stated in the case of Nickerson v. Tirrell, 127 Mass. 236, 239, as perhaps in any case: “The owner or occupant of a dock is liable in damages to a person who, by his invitation express or implied, makes use of it, for an injury caused by any defect or unsafe condition of the dock which the occupant negligently causes or permits to exist, if such person was himself in the exercise of due care. Such occupant is not an insurer of the safety of his dock, but he is required to use reasonable care to keep his dock in such a state as to be reasonably safe for use by vessels which he invites to enter it, or for which he holds it out as fit and ready. If he fails to use such due care, if there is a defect which is known to him, or which by the use of ordinary care and diligence should be known to him, he is guilty of negligence and liable to the person who, using due care, is injured thereby. Wendell v. Baxter, 12 Gray, 494; Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co., 99 Mass. 216; Thompson v. Northeastern Railway, 2 B. & S. 106; Mersey Docks v. Gibbs, L. R. 1 H. L. 93.” Other cases bearing upon this point are: Smith v. Burnett, 173 U. S. 430; Barber v. Abendroth, 102 N. Y. 406; Barrett v. Black, 56 Maine, 498; Sawyer v. Oakman, 1 Lowell, 134, s. c. 7 Blatchf. 290; The John A. Berkman, 6 Fed. Rep. 535; Pennsylvania Railroad v. Atha, 22 Fed. Rep. 920; Smith v. Havemeyer, 36 Fed. Rep. 927; Manhattan Transportation Co. v. Mayor, 37 Fed. Rep. 160; Union Ice Co. v. Crowell, 55 Fed. Rep. 87. The rule is the same in England. Gibbs v. Liverpool Docks, 3 H. & N. 164; s. c. nom. Mersey Docks v. Gibbs, 11 H. L. Cas. 686, and L. R. 1 H. L. 93; The Moorcock, 13 P. D. 157, and 14 P. D. 64.

It is clear that the vessel was in the defendant’s dock on business, and was, therefore, there by invitation. The judge has found, and the evidence shows, that the injury was caused by a ledge of rocks embedded in the mud at the bottom of the dock. The questions of fact which he did not pass upon are whether the master was in the exercise of due care, and whether the defendant knew of the defect or could by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence have ascertained its existence.

The fourth request should have been given. See cases cited above.

Exceptions sustained.

INDIANAPOLIS STREET RAILWAY COMPANY v. DAWSON Appellate Court, Indiana, November 17, 1903. Reported in 31 Indiana Appellate Court Reports, 605.

From Superior Court of Marion County; Vincent G. Clifford, Special Judge.

Action by George J. Dawson against the Indianapolis Street Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Roby, J. Action by appellee. Verdict and judgment for $500. Demurrers to first and second paragraphs of complaint overruled. Motion for a new trial overruled.

It is averred in the first paragraph of complaint, in substance, as extracted from a multitude of words, that appellant was on August 25, 1901, a corporation operating a street railway system in Indianapolis and was a common carrier for hire; that it owned a park near said city, and maintained certain attractions therein to induce persons to ride on its cars, inviting them to said park; that on the day named it gave a free band concert therein, the same having been extensively advertised prior thereto; that on said day appellee, accompanied by a lady, took passage upon one of its regular cars, and was conveyed to said park; that a large number of persons were daily transported thereto, among them a large number of lawless persons who were hostile to colored people, of whom appellee was one, their names being unknown to plaintiff, and who had long before said day entered into a conspiracy “to suppress, molest, assault, and insult colored people generally who might visit said park;” that in pursuance of such conspiracy said persons assaulted and beat appellee, and drove him from the park; that he and his companion demeaned themselves in a ladylike and gentlemanly manner, but upon arriving at the park were set upon by a large number of white boys and young men, appellee being assaulted and beaten by them; that appellant had, and had had for a long time prior to said day, full notice and knowledge of said conditions, and of the unlawful purposes aforesaid, and of acts of violence committed thereunder, but took no steps to prevent such conduct; that early in the afternoon of said day said lawless men and boys began marching and drilling openly in said park preparatory to an attack upon any colored male person who should be found there later, appellant taking no steps to prevent such conduct or to notify colored people of the danger, although it had knowledge thereof; that neither appellant nor its officers made any objection to the open and notorious gathering of white men and boys for the unlawful purpose stated; that it was negligent and indifferent in not employing and using a sufficient number of guards and policemen to maintain the peace; that two of its guards or policemen aided and abetted the wrong done appellee by standing by when he was being unmercifully beaten by said crowd of lawless white men and boys, and offering him no assistance, although they were able to do so, and could have prevented injury to him. “Wherefore, by reason of the matters therein stated, the plaintiff has been damaged,” etc. The second paragraph of complaint is somewhat more extended than the first one, but for the purpose of this opinion the statement made is sufficient.

The pleading charges appellant with notice of the alleged conspiracy, with acquiescence therein, and, by its guards or policemen, with passive participation in the actual assault made upon appellee. “When one expressly or by implication invites others to come upon his premises, whether for business or any other purpose, it is his duty to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them into danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the place reasonably safe for the visit.” Cooley, Torts (2d ed.), 718; Howe v. Ohmart, 7 Ind. App. 32, 38; Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 94 Va. 493, 37 L. R. A. 258; North Manchester, etc., Assn. v. Wilcox, 4 Ind. App. 141; Penso v. McCormick, 125 Ind. 116, 21 Am. St. 211.

No case has been cited or found where the premises upon which the injury complained of occurred, and to which the complainant came by invitation, were made unsafe through a conspiracy of the nature set up herein. Danger usually has been attributed to some defect in the premises themselves. But as a matter of principle it is quite as reprehensible to invite one knowing an enemy is awaiting him with the intent to assault and beat him as it would be to invite him without having made the floor or the stairway secure. One attending an agricultural fair in response to a general invitation extended to the public has been awarded damages against the association where his horse was killed by target shooting upon a part of the ground allowed for such purpose. Conradt v. Clauve, 93 Ind. 476, 47 Am. Rep. 388.

Recoveries have also been sustained: When spectators rushed upon a race-track, causing a collision between horses being driven thereon. North Manchester, etc., Assn. v. Wilcox, 4 Ind. App. 141. When an opening was left in a fence surrounding a race-track through which one of the horses, running, went among the spectators. Windeler v. Rush County Fair Assn., 27 Ind. App. 92. Where horses were started on a race-track in opposite directions at the same time, causing collision. Fairmount, etc., Assn. v. Downey, 146 Ind. 503. Where a horse with a vicious habit of track bolting was permitted to run in a race, such horse bolting the track, causing injury. Lane v. Minnesota, etc., Soc., 62 Minn. 175, 29 L. R. A. 708. Recognizing the rule of reasonable care to make the premises safe, a recovery was denied in the absence of any evidence of the immediate cause of a horse running through the crowds. Hart v. Washington Park Club, 157 Ill. 9, 29 L. R. A. 492. Where a street car company maintained a park as a place of attraction for passengers over its line, the falling of a pole used by one making a balloon ascension, under a contract, injuring a bystander, recovery was allowed, the rule being announced that the company must use proper care to protect its patrons from danger while on its grounds. Richmond, etc., R. Co. v. Moore, 94 Va. 493, 37 L. R. A. 258. Where a street car company maintained a large stage for exhibitions, in a pleasure resort owned by it, and made a written contract with a manager, by which the latter furnished various entertainments, among which was target shooting, one injured by a split bullet was allowed to recover, it being held that he might safely rely on those who provided the exhibition and invited his attendance to take due care to make the place safe from such injury as he received, the question of due care being one for the jury. Thompson v. Lowell, etc., St. R. Co., 170 Mass. 577, 40 L. R. A. 345; Curtis v. Kiley, 153 Mass. 123.

The duty of common carriers to protect their passengers from injury on account of unlawful violence by persons not connected with their service has frequently furnished material for judicial consideration. The New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals approved an exhaustive and carefully considered opinion delivered by the Supreme Court of that State to the effect that a passenger who, while attempting to have her baggage checked, was knocked down and injured by cabmen, in no sense servants of the carrier, scuffling on a passageway under its control, might recover against it. Exton v. Central R. Co., 63 N. J. L. 356, 56 L. R. A. 508. In what seems to have been a pioneer case, it was held by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1866, that it was the duty of the trainmen on a passenger-train to exert the forces at their disposal to prevent injury to passengers by others fighting in the car. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Hinds, 53 Pa. St. 512. Ten years later the Supreme Court of Mississippi, after very exhaustive arguments by eminent counsel of national reputation, reached the same conclusion. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Burke, 53 Miss. 200.

Without further elaboration it may safely be said that the unusual character of an alleged peril, from which it is averred the appellant did not use due care to protect its visitors, does not affect the right of recovery, it being otherwise justified. The demurrers were therefore correctly overruled.

Evidence was introduced of other prior assaults at said park upon colored persons, and articles previously published by daily newspapers in the city describing such occurrences were also admitted. In order to determine whether appellant used due care, it was essential to show its knowledge or means of information relative to the conditions alleged to exist, rendering it dangerous for appellee to visit the park. The evidence of similar occurrences was competent as tending to show notice of the conditions. Toledo, etc., R. Co. v. Milligan, 2 Ind. App. 578; City of Delphi v. Lowery, 74 Ind. 520, 39 Am. Rep. 98; City of Goshen v. England, 119 Ind. 368, 375.

The facts upon which appellant’s liability depends otherwise than heretofore considered were questions for the determination of the jury. There was evidence tending to establish, and from which the jury might properly find, the existence of such facts.

Appellant and its officers appear to have displayed indifference to the conditions existing which it and they could not well help knowing. This may have been due to the idea, sometimes entertained, that as to acts of lawlessness it is a sufficient duty of citizenship to be indifferent. Such idea is entirely erroneous.

Judgment affirmed.

SWEENY v. OLD COLONY RAILROAD COMPANY Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, January Term, 1865. Reported in 10 Allen, 368.

Tort to recover damages for a personal injury sustained by being run over by the defendants’ cars, while the plaintiff was crossing their railroad by license, on a private way leading from South Street to Federal Street, in Boston.

At the trial in this Court, before Chapman, J., it appeared that this private way, which is called Lehigh Street, was made by the South Cove Corporation for their own benefit, and that they own the fee of it; that it is wrought as a way, and buildings are erected on each side of it, belonging to the owners of the way, and there has been much crossing there by the public for several years. The defendants, having rightfully taken the land under their charter, not subject to any right of way, made a convenient plank-crossing and kept a flagman at the end of it on South Street, partly to protect their own property, and partly to protect the public. They have never made any objection to such crossing, so far as it did not interfere with their cars and engines. There are several tracks at the crossing. The only right of the public to use the crossing is under the license implied by the facts stated above.

On the day of the accident, the defendants had a car at their depot which they had occasion to run over to their car house. It was attached to an engine and taken over the crossing, and to a proper distance beyond the switch. The coupling-pin was then taken out, the engine reversed, and it was moved towards the car house by the side track. The engine was provided with a good engineer and fireman, and the car with a brakeman; the bell was constantly rung, and the defendants were not guilty of any negligence in respect to the management of the car or engine.

As the engine and car were coming from the depot, the plaintiff, with a horse and a wagon loaded with empty beer barrels, was coming down South Street from the same direction. There was evidence tending to show that, as he approached the crossing, the flagman, who was at his post, made a signal to him with his flag to stop, which he did; that, in answer to an inquiry by the plaintiff whether he could then cross, he then made another signal with his flag, indicating that it was safe to cross; that the plaintiff started and attempted to cross, looking straight forward; that he saw the car coming near him as it went towards the car house; and that he jumped forward from his wagon, and the car knocked him down and ran over him and broke both his legs. It struck the fore-wheel of his wagon and also his horse. If he had remained in his wagon, or had not jumped forwards, or had kept about the middle of the crossing, the evidence showed that he would not have been injured personally. His wagon was near the left-hand side of the plank-crossing as he went.

The defendants contended that, even if the plaintiff used ordinary care, and if the flagman carelessly and negligently gave the signal that he might cross, when in fact it was unsafe to do so on account of the approaching car, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, because the license to people to use the crossing was not a license to use it at the risk of the defendants, but to use it as they best could when not forbidden, taking care of their own safety, and going at their own risk; and also, that if the flagman made a signal to the plaintiff that he might cross, he exceeded his authority.

But the evidence being very contradictory as to the care used by the plaintiff, and also as to the care used by the flagman, the judge ruled, for the purpose of taking a verdict upon these two facts, that the defendants had a right to use the crossing as they did on this occasion, and that they were not bound to keep a flagman there; yet, since they did habitually keep one there, they would be responsible to the plaintiff for the injury done to him by the car, provided he used due care, if he was induced to cross by the signal made to him by the flagman, and if that signal was carelessly or negligently made at a time when it was unsafe to cross on account of the movement of the car.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for $7500; and the case was reserved for the consideration of the whole Court.

J. G. Abbott and P. H. Sears, for the defendants. The defendants had, for all purposes incident to the complete enjoyment of their franchise, the right of exclusive possession and use of the place where the accident happened, against the owners of the fee, and still more against all other persons. Hazen v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 2 Gray, 574; Brainard v. Clapp, 10 Cush. 6; Gen. Stat. c. 63, §§ 102, 103. The defendants were not bound to keep a flagman there, or exercise the other precautions prescribed for the crossing of highways or travelled places. Gen. Stat. c. 63, §§ 64–66, 83–91; Boston & Worcester Railroad v. Old Colony Railroad, 12 Cush. 608. The license or permission, if any, to the plaintiff to pass over the premises did not impose any duty on the defendants, but he took the permission, with its concomitant perils, at his own risk. Howland v. Vincent, 10 Met. 371, 374; Scott v. London Docks Co., 11 Law Times (N. S.), 383; Chapman v. Rothwell, El. Bl. & El. 168; Southcote v. Stanley, 1 Hurlst. & Norm. 247; Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 729, 735, 742; Binks v. South Yorkshire Railway, &c., 32 Law Journ. (N. S.) Q. B. 26; Blithe v. Topham, 1 Rol. Ab. 88; S. C. 1 Vin. Ab. 555, pl. 4; Cro. Jac. 158. The defendants did not hold out to the plaintiff an invitation to pass over. Hounsell v. Smyth and Binks v. South Yorkshire Railway, above cited. The allowing or making of such private crossing was not in itself such an invitation, and did not involve the duty of such precautions. The keeping of a flagman there was wholly for the purpose of preventing persons from crossing, not for the purpose of holding out invitations at any time. The signal that the plaintiff might cross was in answer to his inquiry, and was, at most, only revoking the prohibition, or granting permission; it was not holding out an invitation. The duty of the flagman was simply to warn persons against crossing; and if the flagman held out an invitation or even gave permission to the plaintiff to cross, he went beyond the scope of his employment, and the defendants are not liable on account thereof. Lygo v. Newbold, 9 Exch. 203; Middleton v. Fowle, 1 Salk. 282. Even if the defendants had carelessly held out an invitation to the plaintiff to cross, still they would not be liable; for the report shows that after such supposed invitation the plaintiff might, by the exercise of ordinary care, have avoided the injury; that the plaintiff was himself at the time in the wrong; and that his own negligence and fault contributed to the accident. Todd v. Old Colony & Fall River Railroad, 7 Allen, 207; S. C. 3 Allen, 18, and cases cited; Denny v. Williams, 5 Allen, 1, and cases cited; Spofford v. Harlow, 3 Allen, 177, and cases cited.

Bigelow, C. J. This case has been presented with great care on the part of the learned counsel for the defendants, who have produced before us all the leading authorities bearing on the question of law which was reserved at the trial. We have not found it easy to decide on which side of the line which marks the limit of the defendant’s liability for damages caused by the acts of their agents, the case at bar falls. But on careful consideration we have been brought to the conclusion that the rulings at the trial were right, and that we cannot set aside the verdict for the plaintiff on the ground that it was based on erroneous instructions in matter of law.

In order to maintain an action for an injury to person or property by reason of negligence or want of due care, there must be shown to exist some obligation or duty towards the plaintiff, which the defendant has left undischarged or unfulfilled. This is the basis on which the cause of action rests. There can be no fault, or negligence, or breach of duty, where there is no act, or service, or contract, which a party is bound to perform or fulfil. All the cases in the books, in which a party is sought to be charged on the ground that he has caused a way or other place to be incumbered or suffered it to be in a dangerous condition, whereby accident and injury have been occasioned to another, turn on the principle that negligence consists in doing or omitting to do an act by which a legal duty or obligation has been violated. Thus a trespasser who comes on the land of another without right cannot maintain an action, if he runs against a barrier or falls into an excavation there situated. The owner of the land is not bound to protect or provide safeguards for wrong-doers. So a licensee, who enters on premises by permission only, without an enticement, allurement, or inducement being held out to him by the owner or occupant, cannot recover damages for injuries caused by obstructions or pitfalls. He goes there at his own risk, and enjoys the license subject to its concomitant perils. No duty is imposed by law on the owner or occupant to keep his premises in a suitable condition for those who come there solely for their own convenience or pleasure, and who are not either expressly invited to enter or induced to come upon them by the purpose for which the premises are appropriated and occupied, or by some preparation or adaptation of the place for use by customers or passengers, which might naturally and reasonably lead them to suppose that they might properly and safely enter thereon.

On the other hand, there are cases where houses or lands are so situated, or their mode of occupation and use is such, that the owner or occupant is not absolved from all care for the safety of those who come on the premises, but where the law imposes on him an obligation or duty to provide for their security against accident and injury. Thus the keeper of a shop or store is bound to provide means of safe ingress and egress to and from his premises for those having occasion to enter thereon, and is liable in damages for any injury which may happen by reason of any negligence in the mode of constructing or managing the place of entrance and exit. So the keeper of an inn or other place of public resort would be liable to an action in favor of a person who suffered an injury in consequence of an obstruction or defect in the way or passage which was held out and used as the common and proper place of access to the premises. The general rule or principle applicable to this class of cases is, that an owner or occupant is bound to keep his premises in a safe and suitable condition for those who come upon and pass over them, using due care, if he has held out any invitation, allurement, or inducement, either express or implied, by which they have been led to enter thereon. A mere naked license or permission to enter or pass over an estate will not create a duty or impose an obligation on the part of the owner or person in possession to provide against the danger of accident. The gist of the liability consists in the fact that the person injured did not act merely for his own convenience and pleasure, and from motives to which no act or sign of the owner or occupant contributed, but that he entered the premises because he was led to believe that they were intended to be used by visitors or passengers, and that such use was not only acquiesced in by the owner or person in possession and control of the premises, but that it was in accordance with the intention and design with which the way or place was adapted and prepared or allowed to be so used. The true distinction is this: A mere passive acquiescence by an owner or occupier in a certain use of his land by others involves no liability; but if he directly or by implication induces persons to enter on and pass over his premises, he thereby assumes an obligation that they are in a safe condition, suitable for such use, and for a breach of this obligation he is liable in damages to a person injured thereby.

This distinction is fully recognized in the most recent and best considered cases in the English Courts, and may be deemed to be the pivot on which all cases like the one at bar are made to turn. In Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 556, the owner of land, having a private road for the use of persons coming to his house, gave permission to a builder engaged in erecting a house on the land to place materials on the road; the plaintiff, having occasion to use the road for the purpose of going to the owner’s residence, ran against the materials and sustained damage, for which the owner was held liable. Cockburn, C. J., says: “The proprietors of the soil held out an allurement whereby the plaintiff was induced to come on the place in question; they held this road out to all persons having occasion to proceed to the house as the means of access thereto.” In Chapman v. Rothwell, El. Bl. & El. 168, the proprietor of a brewery was held liable in damages for injury and loss of life caused by permitting a trap-door to be open without sufficient light or proper safeguards, in a passageway through which access was had from the street to his office. This decision was put on the ground that the defendant, by holding out the passageway as the proper mode of approach to his office and brewery, invited the party injured to go there, and was bound to use due care in providing for his safety. This is the point on which the decision turned, as stated by Keating, J., in Hounsell v. Smyth, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 738. In the last-named case the distinction is clearly drawn between the liability of a person who holds out an inducement or invitation to others to enter on his premises by preparing a way or path by means of which they can gain access to his house or store, or pass into or over the land, and in a case where nothing is shown but a bare license or permission tacitly given to go upon or through an estate, and the responsibility of finding a safe and secure passage is thrown on the passenger and not on the owner. The same distinction is stated in Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. 392; Hardcastle v. South Yorkshire Railway, &c., 4 Hurlst. & Norm. 67; and Binks v. South Yorkshire Railway, &c., 32 Law Journ. (N. S.) Q. B. 26. In the last cited case the language of Blackburn, J., is peculiarly applicable to the case at bar. He says, “There might be a case where permission to use land as a path may amount to such an inducement as to lead the persons using it to suppose it a highway, and thus induce them to use it as such.” See also, for a clear statement of the difference between cases where an invitation or allurement is held out by the defendant, and those where nothing appears but a mere license or permission to enter on premises, Bolch v. Smith, 7 Hurlst. & Norm. 741, and Scott v. London Docks Co., 11 Law Times (N. S.), 383.

The facts disclosed at the trial of the case now before us, carefully weighed and considered, bring it within that class in which parties have been held liable in damages by reason of having held out an invitation or inducement to persons to enter upon and pass over their premises. It cannot in any just view of the evidence be said that the defendants were passive only, and gave merely a tacit license or assent to the use of the place in question as a public crossing. On the contrary, the place or crossing was situated between two streets of the city (which are much frequented thoroughfares), and was used by great numbers of people who had occasion to pass from one street to the other, and it was fitted and prepared by the defendants with a convenient plank-crossing, such as is usually constructed in highways, where they are crossed by the tracks of a railroad, in order to facilitate the passage of animals and vehicles over the rails. It had been so maintained by the defendants for a number of years. These facts would seem to bring the case within the principle already stated, that the license to use the crossing had been used and enjoyed under such circumstances as to amount to an inducement, held out by the defendants to persons having occasion to pass, to believe that it was a highway, and to use it as such. But the case does not rest on these facts only. The defendants had not only constructed and fitted the crossing in the same manner as if it had been a highway, but they had employed a person to stand there with a flag, and to warn persons who were about to pass over the railroad when it was safe for them to attempt to cross with the vehicles and animals, without interference or collision with the engines and cars of the defendants. And it was also shown that when the plaintiff started to go over the tracks with his wagon, it was in obedience to a signal from this agent of the defendants that there was no obstruction or hindrance to his safe passage over the railroad. These facts well warranted the jury in finding, as they must have done in rendering a verdict for the plaintiff under the instructions of the Court, that the defendants induced the plaintiff to cross at the time when he attempted to do so, and met with the injury for which he now seeks compensation.

It was suggested that the person employed by the defendants to stand near the crossing with a flag exceeded his authority in giving a signal to the plaintiff that it was safe for him to pass over the crossing just previously to the accident, and that no such act was within the scope of his employment, which was limited to the duty of preventing persons from passing at times when it was dangerous to do so. But it seems to us that this is a refinement and distinction which the facts do not justify. It is stated in the report that the flagman was stationed at the place in question, charged among other things with the duty of protecting the public. This general statement of the object for which the agent was employed, taken in connection with the fact that he was stationed at a place constructed and used as a public way by great numbers of people, clearly included the duty of indicating to persons when it was safe for them to pass, as well as when it was prudent or necessary for them to refrain from passing.

Nor do we think it can be justly said that the flagman in fact held out no inducement to the plaintiff to pass. No express invitation need have been shown. It would have been only necessary for the plaintiff to prove that the agent did some act to indicate that there was no risk of accident in attempting to pass over the crossing. The evidence at the trial was clearly sufficient to show that the agent of the defendants induced the plaintiff to pass, and that he acted in so doing within the scope of the authority conferred on him. The question whether the plaintiff was so induced was distinctly submitted to the jury by the Court; nor do we see any reason for supposing that the instructions on this point were misunderstood or misapplied by the jury. If they lacked fulness, the defendants should have asked for more explicit instructions. Certainly the evidence as reported well warranted the finding of the jury on this point.

It was also urged that, if the defendants were held liable in this action, they would be made to suffer by reason of the fact that they had taken precautions to guard against accident at the place in question, which they were not bound to use, and that the case would present the singular aspect of holding a party liable for neglect in the performance of a duty voluntarily assumed, and which was not imposed by the rules of law. But this is by no means an anomaly. If a person undertakes to do an act or discharge a duty by which the conduct of others may properly be regulated and governed, he is bound to perform it in such manner that those who rightfully are led to a course of conduct or action on the faith that the act or duty will be duly and properly performed shall not suffer loss or injury by reason of his negligence. The liability in such cases does not depend on the motives or considerations which induced a party to take on himself a particular task or duty, but on the question whether the legal rights of others have been violated by the mode in which the charge assumed has been performed.

The Court were not requested at the trial to withdraw the case from the jury on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to show he was in the exercise of due care at the time the accident happened. Upon the evidence, as stated in the report, we cannot say, as matter of law, that the plaintiff did not establish this part of his case.

Judgment on the verdict.

After the above decision was rendered, the verdict was set aside, by Chapman, J., as against the evidence.

STEVENS v. NICHOLS Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, February 23, 1892. Reported in 155 Massachusetts Reports, 472.

Tort, to recover for injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by driving over a curbstone covered with snow in a private way controlled by the defendants. At the trial in the Superior Court, Mason, C. J., at the defendants’ request, ruled that, upon the pleadings and the plaintiff’s opening, he could not maintain the action, and ordered a verdict for the defendants; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts, so far as material to the points decided, appear in the opinion.

John L. Thorndike, for the defendants.

This case bears no resemblance to Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578, where the defendant had constructed a brick sidewalk by the side of a public street, partly on her own land and partly in the street, without any line of separation, and so that the whole was apparently part of the street, and the defendant clearly intended that it should be used as part of the street. There is no similarity between such an addition to the apparent width of a public street and the opening of a private avenue or way out of a public street. The private way could not have been, or intended to be, part of the public street, and the separation between them was plain....

The absence of similarity between this case and Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578, has already been pointed out; but it is also submitted that that case is the first in which it has ever been held that the owner of land was under any obligation to make it safe for a person that was allowed to come upon the land for his own convenience, and for a purpose in which the owner had no interest, whether the owner gave his consent in the form of a permission or in the form of what might, in common language, be called an invitation. Such persons were called licensees, and must take the land as they found it, subject only to this, that the owner must not lead them into danger by “something like fraud.” Gautret v. Egerton, L. R. 2 C. P. 371, 374–375; Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass. 267, 268; Pollock on Torts, 424–426....

But as regards persons coming upon land at the request, actual or tacit, of the owner upon business or for a purpose in which the owner had an interest, it was his duty to make it reasonably safe, and he was liable for damages arising from a neglect of this duty. Indermaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. P. 274, 2 C. P. 311; Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co., 99 Mass. 216 (rock by wharf at which vessel unloaded); The Moorcock, 14 P. D. 64 (a similar case); Davis v. Central Congregational Society, 129 Mass. 367 (plaintiff attending a conference of churches at defendant’s meeting-house, an object in which both parties had an interest; also, p. 371, “a dangerous place without warning”); Pollock on Torts, 415–418.

It is this common interest, not the form of the license or invitation, that creates the liability (Holmes v. North Eastern Ry. Co., L. R. 4 Ex. 254, 6 Ex. 123).

The distinction between these two classes of cases is that in one the owner of the land has an interest in the person’s coming there, while in the other the authority to come upon the land is a pure gratuity. It is reasonable that the owner should undertake some duty in respect of the condition of the land when he brings another person there for an object in which he himself has an interest. But there is no reason why he should undertake any such duty when he makes a gift of the privilege of going upon his land. The privilege is only a gift, whether the owner gives it because it is asked for, or whether he offers it first, or asks or “invites” the other to accept it. It may in a sense be said that a person is “induced” to go upon land by a license or permission of the owner, but the real inducement is his own convenience. When the owner asks him to walk over his land whenever it is agreeable to him, and he goes there, he does so because it is agreeable to him, and not because the owner asks him. He is in law a licensee going upon the land for his own convenience by the owner’s permission, and not a person brought there for a purpose in which the owner has an interest.

Licensees, however, have a right to expect that the owner will not create a new danger while the license continues, and he is liable for the consequences if he does create such a danger; e. g., by making an excavation near a path, as in Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489, 502, or by placing an obstruction in an avenue, as in Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. N. S. 556, 567, or by carelessly throwing a keg into a passageway, as in Corrigan v. Union Sugar Refinery, 98 Mass. 577, or by negligent management of trains at a private crossing of a railway habitually used by the public with the assent of the company, as in Sweeny v. Old Colony Rld. Co., 10 Allen, 368; Murphy v. Boston & Albany Rld. Co., 133 Mass. 121; Hanks v. Boston & Albany Rld. Co., 147 Mass. 495; Byrne v. New York Central Rld. Co., 104 N. Y. 362; Swift v. Staten Island Rld. Co., 123 N. Y. 645; Taylor v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co., 113 Pa. St. 162, 175.

The principle of these cases is stated by Willes, J., in Gautret v. Egerton, L. R. 2 C. P., p. 373, as follows: “If I dedicate a way to the public which is full of ruts and holes, the public must take it as it is. If I dig a pit in it, I may be liable for the consequences; but, if I do nothing, I am not.”

The same principle is alluded to in June v. Boston & Albany Rld. Co., 153 Mass. p. 82, where the court speaks of “cases in which even unintended damage done to a licensee by actively bringing force to bear upon his person will stand differently from merely passively leaving land in a dangerous condition.”

The cases above mentioned include all that are cited in Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 580. In none of them is it held or suggested that the railway company was liable for any defect or obstruction in the crossing, or that the landowner was liable for any excavation or obstruction existing when the permission was granted.

[After citing cases where the court said that some kind of inducement or invitation was necessary to create a liability for want of care in running trains.] But it was not suggested that the inducement or invitation would create any liability for defects in the crossing itself which the company gratuitously allowed the public to use.

[Referring to cases where there is implied license to the public to use a crossing.] The probability known to the company that some one may be there in pursuance of the license is treated ... as the ground of liability in such cases for want of care in running trains.... But there is nothing in any of the cases above mentioned tending to support the proposition that the knowledge of the habitual use of the crossing, pursuant to the implied permission, would create a liability for defects in the crossing itself or impose any kind of duty to make it safe or convenient.

Holmes v. Drew (151 Mass. 578) does not belong to either of the two last classes of cases. The plaintiff (1) did not go there upon the defendant’s land for any purpose in which the defendant was interested, and (2) the defendant did nothing to make the place less safe than it was when it was first opened to the public. The plaintiff was a volunteer, going upon the defendant’s land with her full permission, but entirely for his own convenience. These distinctions do not appear to have been called to the attention of the court. The judgment, which is very short, seems to proceed upon the ground that the defendant, by paving a footway partly on her own land and allowing it to remain apparently a part of the street, showed an intention that it should be used by foot passengers, and that this would amount to an implied invitation, which imposed on her a duty to make it reasonably safe. If this is to be taken literally, a permission ceases to be a license if it is intended that it shall be used; and an invitation imposes the same duty when it is given gratuitously for the pleasure of the donee as when it is given for an object in which the giver has an interest; and the owner of land that gives permission to cross his land can escape liability only by proving that he did not intend the permission to be used. It is submitted that the authorities cited in that case do not support this doctrine. Two of them are cases where the invitation was to come upon the land for a purpose in which the owner had an interest, and in the three others a licensee was injured by negligence in something done after the license was given....

Lathrop, J. The declaration in this case, so far as material to the questions presented at the argument, alleged that the defendants on the day of the accident were, and had been for a long time, lessees and occupants of an estate on Atlantic Avenue in Boston; that the defendants maintained a way or street down by their premises, “leading out of said Atlantic Avenue, and extending to other premises beyond; that said street was in all particulars like the public streets of the city of Boston, being paved with granite blocks, and having sidewalks, and to all appearances was a public thoroughfare; that the defendants had placed no sign or notice of any kind upon or about said street ... which would give warning to the plaintiff or to the public that said street was private property, or dangerous, but had erected a granite curbing out into said street, extending one half the distance across the same, on a line with the rear of their estate, said granite curbing being from six to seven inches above the grade of the paving; that said obstruction was dangerous both by day and by night to all persons who entered upon or passed through said street; that on or about said day the plaintiff had business that called him to the premises that lie beyond the estate of the defendants on said street, and, supposing and assuming that said street was a highway, and being induced by the acts and omissions of these defendants to so suppose and assume, entered in and upon said street to drive through the same; that said obstruction was covered by snow at said time, and plaintiff was unable to see the same; and, while in the exercise of due care, his sleigh struck said granite curbing,” and he was thrown out and injured.

The opening of the plaintiff’s counsel added but little to the declaration. It stated that “the snow lay perfectly level” where the curbstone was; that the plaintiff was driving through the defendants’ way “into the way lying beyond, of which it was ... an extension,” to reach the works of the company for which he was working. It also stated that, before the defendants controlled the way under the written lease, they owned the premises, erected the building, paved the way, and put in the curbstone; “that ever since this building and other buildings had been erected down there the public made use of that way, as they would use any other street in the city; that is, as much as they had any occasion to pass down there with teams or on foot.”

It does not appear that the plaintiff had any right in the way, unless he had it as one of the public. There is no allegation or statement that the plaintiff had ever used the way before, or that he knew the way was paved, or noticed whether there was a sign or not. Indeed, if he was then using the way for the first time, the fair inference would be, from the statement of the condition of the snow, that the fact that the way was paved was unknown to him until after the accident, and did not operate as an inducement to enter the way. The declaration contained no allegation as to any use by the public of the way, and the statement in the opening of counsel, that the public made use of that way, was qualified by the words, “that is, as much as they had any occasion to pass down there with teams or on foot.” It is difficult to see how vehicles of any description could, when the paving was sufficiently visible to act as an inducement, go over that portion of the way which the defendants controlled.

Without laying stress upon these points, we are of opinion that the declaration and the opening of the plaintiff’s counsel do not show that there was any breach on the part of the defendants of any duty which they owed the plaintiff. The defendants were not obliged to put up a sign notifying travellers on the public street that the passageway was not a public way. Galligan v. Metacomet Manuf. Co., 143 Mass. 527; Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass. 267; Redigan v. Boston & Maine Railroad, ante, 44.

Nor can the fact that the passageway was paved be considered an invitation or inducement to the public to enter upon it for their own convenience. The defendants have a right to pave it for their own use or for the use of their customers. Johnson v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 125 Mass. 75; Heinlein v. Boston & Providence Railroad, 147 Mass. 136; Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass. 267; Donnelly v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 151 Mass. 210; Redigan v. Boston & Maine Railroad, ante, 44.

There was in this case no allegation and no statement that the defendants had any knowledge that the public was using the passageway, or of such a condition of things that it can be said that they must have known of it. But if it be assumed that there was such use and such acquiescence that a license might be implied, the plaintiff stands in no better position. “The general rule is,” as stated by Mr. Justice Holmes in Reardon v. Thompson, ubi supra, “that a licensee goes upon land at his own risk, and must take the premises as he finds them.” See also Redigan v. Boston & Maine Railroad, ante, 44; Gautret v. Egerton, L. R. 2 C. P. 371, 374.

The licensor has, however, no right to create a new danger while the license continues. Oliver v. Worcester, 102 Mass. 489, 502; Corrigan v. Union Sugar Refinery, 98 Mass. 577; Corby v. Hill, 4 C. B. (N. S.) 556. So a railroad company which allows the public habitually to use a private crossing of its tracks cannot use active force against a person or vehicle crossing under a license, express or implied. Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport Railroad, 10 Allen, 368; Murphy v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 133 Mass. 121; Hanks v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 147 Mass. 495. See June v. Boston & Albany Railroad, 153 Mass. 79, 82.

We have no occasion to consider whether the case of Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578, is open to the criticism that it is inconsistent with the doctrine that a person who dedicates a footway to the public use is not obliged to keep it in repair (see Fisher v. Prowse, 2 B. & S. 770, 780, and Robbins v. Jones, 15 C. B. (N. S.) 221) as we are of opinion that that case has no application to the case at bar. In Holmes v. Drew, the defendant made a continuous pavement in front of his house, partly on his own land and partly on the public land; and it was held that the jury might infer from this an invitation to walk over the whole pavement. In the case at bar, the defendants merely opened a private way into a public street, and we fail to see that they thereby invited the public to use it, even though it were paved.

Exceptions overruled.

TUTTLE v. GILBERT MANUFACTURING CO. Supreme Judicial Court, Massachusetts, October 20, 1887. Reported in 145 Massachusetts Reports, 169.

Tort, by lessee of a building against lessor. The lessee claimed, and introduced evidence to show, that, at the time of letting, the lessor agreed to repair the building and put it in safe condition; that the lessee suffered damage by reason of a defect in the building; and that the lessor failed and neglected to make repairs until after the damage to the plaintiff.

Upon the evidence, the judge ruled that plaintiff could not recover, and ordered a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff excepted.

Morton, C. J. It is the general rule that there is no warranty implied in the letting of premises that they are reasonably fit for use. The lessee takes an estate in the premises hired, and he takes the risk of the quality of the premises, in the absence of an express or implied warranty by the lessor, or of deceit. A lessee, therefore, if he is injured by reason of the unsafe condition of the premises hired, cannot maintain an action against the lessor, in the absence of warranty or of misrepresentation. In cases where lessors have been held liable for such injuries to the lessees, the liability is founded in negligence. Looney v. McLean, 129 Mass. 33. Bowe v. Hunking, 135 Mass. 380, and cases cited.

The plaintiff admits the general rule, but contends that this case is taken out of it because, at the time of the letting, the defendant agreed to repair and put in a safe condition the stable floor, the unsafe condition of which caused the injury. The contract relied on is a loose one; it fixed no time within which the repairs were to be made, and it is doubtful whether the evidence proved any breach of contract on the part of the defendant. But if we assume that the contract was to make the repairs within a reasonable time, and that the jury would be justified in finding that the defendant had not performed it within a reasonable time, the question is whether, for such a breach, the plaintiff can maintain an action of tort to recover for personal injuries sustained by reason of the defective condition of the stable floor.

The cases are numerous and confusing as to the dividing line between actions of contract and of tort, and there are many cases where a man may have his election to bring either action. Where the cause of action arises merely from a breach of promise, the action is in contract.

The action of tort has for its foundation the negligence of the defendant, and this means more than a mere breach of a promise. Otherwise, the failure to meet a note, or any other promise to pay money, would sustain an action in tort for negligence, and thus the promisor be made liable for all the consequential damages arising from such failure.

As a general rule, there must be some active negligence or misfeasance to support tort. There must be some breach of duty distinct from breach of contract. In the case at bar, the utmost shown against the defendant is that there was unreasonable delay on its part in performing an executory contract. As we have seen, it is not liable by reason of the relation of lessor and lessee, but its liability, if any, must rest solely upon a breach of this contract.

We do not see how the cases would differ in principle if an action were brought against a third person who had contracted to repair the stable floor and had unreasonably delayed in performing his contract. We are not aware of any authority for maintaining such an action. If the defendant had performed the work contemplated by its contract unskilfully and negligently, it would be liable to an action of tort, because in such case there would be a misfeasance, which is a sufficient foundation for an action of tort. Such was the case of Gill v. Middleton, 105 Mass. 477.

The case of Ashley v. Root, 4 Allen, 504, does not conflict with our view, but recognizes the rule that to sustain an action of tort there must be more than a mere breach of contract.

The plaintiff now argues that he had the right to go to the jury upon the questions of warranty and deceit. It does not appear that this claim was made in the Superior Court; but it is clear that there is no sufficient evidence of any warranty that the stable was safe, or of any deceit or misrepresentation on the part of the defendant or its agent.

Exceptions overruled.

SOUTHCOTE v. STANLEY In the Exchequer, June 4, 1856. Reported in 1 Hurlstone & Norman, 247.

The declaration stated that at the time of the committing of the grievances, &c., the defendant was possessed of an hotel, into which he had then permitted and invited the plaintiff to come as a visitor of the defendant, and in which the plaintiff as such visitor then lawfully was by the permission and invitation of the defendant, and in which hotel there then was a glass door of the defendant which it was then necessary for the plaintiff, as such visitor, to open for the purpose of leaving the hotel, and which the plaintiff, as such visitor, then by the permission of the defendant and with his knowledge, and without any warning from him, lawfully opened for the purpose aforesaid, as a door which was in a proper condition to be opened; nevertheless, by and through the mere carelessness, negligence, and default of the defendant in that behalf, the said door was then in an insecure and dangerous condition, and unfit to be used or opened, and by reason of the said door being in such insecure and dangerous condition and unfit, as aforesaid, and of the then carelessness, negligence, default, and improper conduct of the defendant in that behalf, a large piece of glass from the said door fell out of the same to and upon the plaintiff, and wounded him, and he sustained divers bodily injuries, and remained ill and unable to work for a long time, &c.

Demurrer and joinder therein.

Raymond, in support of the demurrer. The declaration discloses no cause of action. It is not stated that the plaintiff was in the hotel as a guest, but merely as a visitor; and there is no allegation that the defendant knew of the dangerous condition of the door. To render the defendant liable, the declaration ought to have shown some contract between the plaintiff and the defendant which imposed on the latter the obligation of taking care that the door was secure; or it should have alleged some negligence on the part of the defendant in the performance of a duty which he owed to the plaintiff. [Bramwell, B. If a person invites another into his house, and the latter can only enter through a particular door, is it not the duty of the former to take care that the door is in a secure condition?] He may not be aware that the door is insecure. This declaration only alleges that through the carelessness, negligence, and default of the defendant the door was in a dangerous condition; that cannot be read as involving the allegation that the defendant knew that the door was insecure. All facts necessary to raise a legal liability must be strictly averred. Metcalfe v. Hetherington, 11 Exch. 257. [Alderson, B. It is not stated that it was the duty of the defendant, as an hotel keeper, to take care that the door was secure. Suppose a person invites another to his house, and the latter runs his hand through a pane of glass, how is the former liable?] The Court then called on

Gray, contra. The declaration shows a duty on the part of the defendant, and a breach of that duty. It is immaterial whether the injury takes place in a private house, or in a shop, or in a street; the only question is whether the person who complains was lawfully there? The case is similar in principle to that of Randleson v. Murray, 8 A. & E. 109, which decided that a warehouseman who lowers goods from his warehouse is bound to use proper tackle for that purpose. [Alderson, B. It is the duty of every person who hangs anything over a public way to take care that it is suspended by a proper rope.] Whether it be a private house or a shop, a duty is so far imposed on the occupier to keep it reasonably secure, that if a person lawfully enters, and through the negligence of the occupier in leaving it in an insecure state receives an injury, the occupier is responsible. Here it is alleged that the defendant invited the plaintiff to come into the hotel as a visitor; that shows that he was lawfully there. [Pollock, C. B. The position that an action lies because the plaintiff was lawfully in the house, cannot be supported; a servant is lawfully in his master’s house and yet if the balusters fell, whereby he was injured, he could not maintain an action against the master. If a lady who is invited to dinner goes in an expensive dress, and a servant spills something over her dress which spoils it, the master of the house would not be liable. Where a person enters a house by invitation the same rule prevails as in the case of a servant. A visitor would have no right of action for being put in a damp bed, or near a broken pane of glass, whereby he caught cold. Alderson, B. The case of a shop is different, because a shop is open to the public; and there is a distinction between persons who come on business and those who come by invitation.]

Pollock, C. B. We are all of opinion that the declaration cannot be supported, and that the defendant is entitled to judgment. I do not think it necessary to point out the reasons by which I have come to that conclusion; because it follows from the decision of this Court (Priestley v. Fowler, 3 M. & W. 1) that the mere relation of master and servant does not create any implied duty on the part of the master to take more care of the servant than he may reasonably be expected to do of himself. That decision has been followed by several cases, and is now established law, though I believe the principle was not recognized until recent times. The reason for the rule is that the servant undertakes to run all the ordinary risks of service, including those arising from the negligence of his fellow-servants. The rule applies to all the members of a domestic establishment, so that the master is not in general liable to a servant for injury resulting from the negligence of a fellow-servant; neither can one servant maintain an action against another for negligence whilst engaged in their common employment. The same principle applies to the case of a visitor at a house; whilst he remains there he is in the same position as any other member of the establishment, so far as regards the negligence of the master or his servants, and he must take his chance with the rest.

Alderson, B. I am of the same opinion.

Bramwell, B. I agree with Mr. Gray to this extent, that where a person is in the house of another, either on business or for any other purpose, he has a right to expect that the owner of the house will take reasonable care to protect him from injury; for instance, that he will not allow a trap-door to be open through which the visitor may fall. But in this case my difficulty is to see that the declaration charges any act of commission. If a person asked another to walk in his garden, in which he had placed spring-guns or men-traps, and the latter, not being aware of it, was thereby injured, that would be an act of commission. But if a person asked a visitor to sleep at his house, and the former omitted to see that the sheets were properly aired, whereby the visitor caught cold, he could maintain no action, for there was no act of commission, but simply an act of omission. This declaration merely alleges that “by and through the mere carelessness, negligence, default, and improper conduct of the defendant,” the glass fell from the door. That means a want of care,—a default in not doing something. The words are all negatives, and under these circumstances the action is not maintainable. I doubted whether the words “carelessness, negligence, and improper conduct,” &c., might not mean something equivalent to actual commission, but on the best consideration which I can give the subject, it appears to me that they do not mean that, but merely point to a negative. If I misconstrue the declaration it is the fault of those who so framed it.

Judgment for the defendant.

BEEHLER v. DANIELS Supreme Court, Rhode Island, May 1, 1894. Reported in 18 Rhode Island Reports, 563.

Trespass on the Case. Certified from the Common Pleas Division on demurrer to the declaration.

Stiness, J. The plaintiff seeks to recover for injury caused by falling into an elevator well in the defendants’ building, which he entered in the discharge of his duty, as a member of the fire department of the city of Providence, in answering a call to extinguish a fire. The negligence alleged in the first count is a failure to guard and protect the well; and in the second count such a packing of merchandise as to guide and conduct one to the unguarded and unprotected well. The defendants demur to the declaration, alleging as grounds of demurrer that they owed no duty to the plaintiff; that he entered their premises in the discharge of a public duty and assumed the risks of his employment; that he was in the premises without invitation from them; and that they are not liable for consequences which they could not and were not bound to foresee.

The decisive question thus raised is, Did the defendants, under the circumstances, owe to the plaintiff a duty, for failure in which they are liable to him in damages? The question is not a new one, and we think it is safe to say that it has never been answered otherwise than in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff argues that it was his duty to enter the premises, and, consequently, since an owner may reasonably anticipate the liability of a fire, a duty arises from the owner to the fireman to keep his premises guarded and safe. An extension of this argument to its legitimate result, as a rule of law, is sufficiently startling to show its unsoundness. The liability to fire is common to all buildings and at all times. Hence every owner of every building must at all times keep every part of his property, in such condition, that a fireman, unacquainted with the place, and groping about in darkness and smoke, shall come upon no obstacle, opening, machine or anything whatever which may cause him injury. This argument was urged in Woodruff v. Bowen, 136 Ind. 431; but the court said: “We are of the opinion that the owner of a building in a populous city does not owe it as a duty at common law, independent of any statute or ordinance, to keep such building safe for firemen or other officers, who, in a contingency, may enter the same under a license conferred by law.”

Undoubtedly the plaintiff in this case had the right to enter the defendants’ premises, and the character of his entry was that of a licensee. Cooley on Torts, *313. But no such duty as is averred in this declaration is due from an owner to a licensee. This question is discussed in the case just cited, as also in many others. For example, in Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass. 267, Holmes, J., says: “But the general rule is that a licensee goes upon land at his own risk, and must take the premises as he finds them. An open hole, which is not concealed otherwise than by the darkness of the night, is a danger which a licensee must avoid at his peril.” So in Mathews v. Bensel, 51 N. J. Law, 30, Beasley, C. J., says: “The substantial ground of complaint laid in the count is, that the defendants did not properly construct their planer, and, being a dangerous instrument, did not surround it with proper safeguards. But there is no legal principle that imposes such a duty as this on the owner of property with respect to a mere licensee. This is the recognized rule. In the case of Holmes v. Northeastern Railway Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 254, 256, Baron Channell says: ‘That where a person is a mere licensee he has no cause of action on account of the dangers existing in the place he is permitted to enter.’” In Parker v. Portland Publishing Co., 69 Me. 173, this question is fully examined, the court holding it to be well settled, if the plaintiff was at the place where the injury was received by license merely, that the defendant would owe him no duty and that he could not recover. See also Indiana, etc., Railway Co. v. Barnhart, 115 Ind. 399; Gibson v. Leonard, 37 Ill. App. 344; Bedell v. Berkey, 76 Mich. 435.

There is a clear distinction between a license and an invitation to enter premises, and an equally clear distinction as to the duty of an owner in the two cases. An owner owes to a licensee no duty as to the condition of premises, unless imposed by statute, save that he should not knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril or wilfully cause him harm; while to one invited he is under obligation for reasonable security for the purposes of the invitation. The plaintiff’s declaration does not set out a cause of action upon either of these grounds, and the cases cited and relied on by him fall within the two classes of cases described, and mark the line of duty very clearly. Parker v. Barnard, 135 Mass. 116, was the case of a police officer who had entered a building, the doors of which were found open in the night time, to inspect it according to the rules of the police department, and fell down an unguarded elevator well. A statute required such wells to be protected by railings and trap-doors. Judgment having been given for the defendant at the trial, a new trial was ordered upon the ground of a violation of statute. The court says: “The owner or occupant of land or a building is not liable, at common law, for obstructions, pitfalls, or other dangers there existing, as, in the absence of any inducement or invitation to others to enter, he may use his property as he pleases. But he holds his property ‘subject to such reasonable control and regulation of the mode of keeping and use as the legislature, under the police power vested in them by the Constitution of the Commonwealth, may think necessary for the preventing of injuries to the rights of others and the security of the public health and welfare.’” Then, likening the plaintiff to a fireman, the court also says: “Even if they must encounter the danger arising from neglect of such precautions against obstructions and pitfalls as those invited or induced to enter have a right to expect, they may demand, as against the owners or occupants, that they observe the statute in the construction and management of their building.” In Learoyd v. Godfrey, 138 Mass. 315, a police officer fell down an uncovered well in or near a passageway to a house where he was called to quell a disturbance of the peace. A verdict for the plaintiff was sustained upon the ground that the jury must have found that the officer was using the passageway by the defendant’s invitation and that the evidence warranted the finding. Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513, was the case of a letter carrier who fell into an elevator well, in a hallway where he was accustomed to leave letters in boxes put there for that purpose. The court held that there was an implied invitation to the carrier to enter the premises. In Engel v. Smith, 82 Mich. 1, the plaintiff fell through a trap-door left open in a building where he was employed. The question of duty is not discussed in the case but simply the fact of negligence. In Bennett v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 577, the plaintiff, a passenger, fell through a hatch hole in the depot floor. The court construed the declaration as setting out facts which amounted to an invitation to the plaintiff to pass over the route which he took through the shed depot where the hatch hole was.

In the present case the plaintiff sets out no violation of a statute, or facts which amount to an invitation, and, consequently, under the well-settled rule of law, the defendants were under no liability to him for the condition of their premises or the packing of their merchandise. The demurrer to the declaration must therefore be sustained.