"The law is well settled that an owner or occupant of land who by invitation, express or implied, induces or leads others to go upon premises for any lawful purpose is liable for injuries occasioned by the unsafe condition of the land or its approaches, if such condition was known to him and not to them." 14 If there are hidden dangers upon the premises he must use ordinary care to give warning thereof.15 While the rule has been applied in innumerable situations, it has been invoked most frequently, perhaps, in the case of injuries from unguarded excavations,16 unprotected stairways, 17 hatchways, 18 trapdoors,19 turnstiles, revolving or swinging doors, 20 and collapsing buildings. The facts of the particular case are, of course, controlling upon the question of negligence, and the decision thereon is properly within the sphere of the jury.3

52. Basis of Duty to Persons Going on Premises.-The mere ownership of land or buildings does not render one liable for injuries sustained by persons who have entered thereon or therein; the owner

Notes: 26 L.R.A. 686, 689; Ann. Cas. 1915D 326.

17. Boyd v. United States Mortg., etc., Co., 187 N. Y. 262, 79 N. E. 999, 116 A. S. R. 599, 10 Ann. Cas. 146, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 399.

v. Clark, 205 Pa. St. 314, 54 Atl. Note: Ann. Cas. 1915D 326. 1027, 62 L.R.A. 959; Boyce v. Union 16. Haughey v. Hart, 62 Ia. 96, 17 Pac. R. Co., 8 Utah 353, 31 Pac. 450, N. W. 189, 49 Am. Rep. 133; Patten 18 L.R.A. 509; Selinas v. Vermont v. Bartlett, 111 Me. 409, 89 Atl. 375, State Agricultural Soc., 60 Vt. 249, 15 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1120. Atl. 117, 6 A. S. R. 114; Nichols v. Washington, etc., R. Co., 83 Va. 99, 5 S. E. 171, 5 A. S. R. 257; Clark v. Fehlhaber, 106 Va. 803, 56 S. E. 817, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 442; Kearney v. London, etc., R. Co., L. R. 6 Q. B. 759, 40 L. J. Q. B. 285, 24 L. T. N. S. 913, 20 W. R. 24, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 1; Heaven v. Pender, 11 Q. B. D. 503, 52 L. J. Q. B. 702, 49 L. T. N. S. 357, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 81 and note; Indermaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. P. 274, L. R. 2 C. P. 311, 35 L. J. C. Pl. 184, 36 L. J. C. Pl. 181, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 64; Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. & N. 247, 25 L. J. Exch. 339, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 60.

Notes: 26 Am. Rep. 562; 7 L.R.A. 620; Ann. Cas. 1913A 116.

See also LICENSES, vol. 17, p. 588; RAILROADS; THEATERS, SHOWS AND PUBLIC RESORTS.

14. Calvert v. Springfield Electric Light, etc., Co., 231 Ill. 290, 83 N. E. 184, 12 Ann. Cas. 423, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 782.

15. Calvert v. Springfield Electric Light, etc., Co., 231 Ill. 290, 83 N. E. 184, 12 Ann. Cas. 423, 14 L.R.A. (N.S.) 782.

18. Freer v. Cameron, 4 Rich. L. (S. C.) 228, 55 Am. Dec. 663; Lowe v. Salt Lake City, 113 Utah 91, 44 Pac. 1050, 57 A. S. R. 708; Indermaur v. Dames, L. R. 1 C. P. 274, L. R. 2 C. P. 311, 35 L. J. C. Pl. 184, 36 L. J. C. Pl. 181, 19 Eng. Rul. Cas. 64.

19. Elliott v. Pray, 10 Allen (Mass.) 378, 87 Am. Dec. 653; Pelton v. Schmidt, 104 Mich. 345, 62 N. W. 552, 53 A. S. R. 462.

20. Gascoigne v. Metropolitan West Side El. R. Co., 239 Ill. 18, 87 N. E. 883, 16 Ann. Cas. 115 and note.

1. Earl v. Reid, 21 Ont. L. Rep. 545, 18 Ann. Cas. 1 and note. See also BUILDINGS, vol. 4, pp. 408-411.

2. Southern Exp. Co. v. Williamson, 66 Fla. 286, 63 So. 433, L.R.A.1916C 1208.

3. Selinas v. Vermont State Agricultural Soc., 60 Vt. 249, 15 Atl. 117, 6 A. S. R. 114.

4. Kelly v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.,

6

is not an insurer of such persons, even when he has invited them to enter. Nor is there any presumption of negligence on the part of an owner or occupier merely upon a showing that an injury has been sustained by one while rightfully upon the premises. The true ground of liability is the proprietor's superior knowledge of the perilous instrumentality and the danger therefrom to persons going upon the property. It is when the perilous instrumentality is known to the owner or occupant and not known to the person injured that a recovery is permitted. In the language of Mr. Justice Harlan, the owner is liable to invited persons for injuries "occasioned by the unsafe condition of the land or its approaches, if such condition was known to him and not to them, and was negligently suffered to exist, without timely notice to the public or to those who were likely to act upon such invitation."9 Again, it has been said that the phrase "implied invitation," in its real value and significance, as derived from its application in the adjudged cases, imports knowledge by the defendant of the probable use by the plaintiff of the defendant's property so situated and conditioned as to be open to, and likely to be subjected to, such use. 10 And, hence, there is no liability for injuries from dangers that are obvious,11 or as well known to the person injured as to the owner or occupant. 12 Accordingly it has been held that the rule of liability to invited persons has no application to a case where a person who, from his experience through many years in a sailing vessel, knows that it is customary to leave the hatchways of vessels open while lying in port.13

53. Persons Not Invited; Trespassers; Licensees.-The rule frequently has been stated that the owner or occupier of land owes no duty to keep his premises safe in behalf of trespassers, 14 idlers, in

65 Mich. 186, 31 N. W. 904, 8 A. S. R. 876; Wright v. Big Rapids Door, etc., Mfg. Co., 124 Mich. 91, 82 N. W. 829, 50 L.R.A. 495. See supra, par. 40.

5. Branham v. Buckley, 158 Ky. 848, 166 S. W. 618, Ann. Cas. 1915D 861; Ryder v. Kinsey, 62 Minn. 85, 64 N. W. 94, 54 A. S. R. 623, 34 L.R.A. 557; Clark v. Fehlhaber, 106 Va. 803, 56 S. E. 817, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 442. See supra, par. 3.

6. Huey v. Gahlenbeck, 121 Pa. St. 238, 15 Atl. 520, 6 A. S. R. 790. See infra, par. 155.

7. See supra, par. 10.

8. Donaldson v. Wilson, 60 Mich. 86, 26 N. W. 842, 1 A. S. R. 487; Lowe v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 91, 44 Pac. 1050, 57 A. S. R. 708.

9. Bennet v. Louisville, etc., R. Co.,

102 U. S. 577, 26 U. S. (L. ed.) 235.

10. Lepnick v. Gaddis, 72 Miss. 200, 16 So. 213, 48 A. S. R. 547, 26 L.R.A.

686.

11. Lary v. Cleveland, etc., R. Co., 78 Ind. 323, 41 Am. Rep. 572; Hoyt v. Woodbury, 200 Mass. 343, 86 N. E. 772, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 730; Butz v. Cavanaugh, 137 Mo. 503, 38 S. W. 1104, 59 A. S. R. 504.

Note: 5 L.R.A. 580.

12. Caniff v. Blanchard Nav. Co., 66 Mich. 638, 33 N. W. 744, 11 A. S. R. 541. See infra, par. 93 et seq.

13. Caniff v. Blanchard Nav. Co., 66 Mich. 638, 33 N. W, 744, 11 A. S. R. 541.

14. Riedel v. West Jersey, etc., R. Co., 177 Fed. 374, 101 C. C. A. 428, 21 Ann. Cas. 746, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.)

truders, 15 or others who come thereon without right or invitation.16 The owner of real property is entitled to its exclusive use and enjoyment, and is not liable to others for injuries occasioned by its unsafe

condition when the person receiving the injury was not at or near the place of danger by lawful right, and when the owner has neither expressly nor impliedly invited him there, nor allured him by attractions or inducements exhibited or held out in some way calculated to lead him into danger, without giving notice of the peril to be avoided.17 And where danger is patent, and a licensee chooses to remain, he takes on himself all natural and probable results of the danger. Thus, bystanders watching the raising of a derailed locomotive cannot hold the railroad company liable for injury caused by the hurling against them of a portion of the engine, which gives way under the strain of the cables used in the work.18 Very often the principle has been applied in the case of persons injured by falling through unguarded trapdoors 19 and hatchways,20 or into excavations on the property.1 No distinction is to be drawn, according to the general use of terms, between persons coming within the description of "licensees" and those who are trespassers. Doubtless, for some purposes a licensee has greater rights than a trespasser, but in this situation they are upon an equality. The obligation owed to all such persons as are

R. 611; Southcote v. Stanley, 1 H. &
N. 247, 25 L. J. Exch. 339, 19 Eng.
Rul. Cas. 60.

Note: 34 Am. Rep. 233.

17. Galveston Oil Co. v. Morton, 70 Tex. 400, 7 S. W. 756, 8 A. S. R. 611. 18. Shafer v. Tacoma Eastern R. Co., 91 Wash. 164, 157 Pac. 485, L.R.A.1916F 114 and note.

19. Zoebisch v. Tarbell, 10 Allen (Mass.) 385, 87 Am. Dec. 660; Engel v. Smith, 82 Mich. 1, 46 N. W. 21, 21 A. S. R. 549.

20. Severy v. Nickerson, 120 Mass. 306, 21 Am. Rep. 514.

1. Pekin v. McMahon, 154 Ill. 141, 39 N. E. 484, 45 A. S. R. 114, 27 L.R.A. 206; Johnson v. Paducah Laundry Co., 122 Ky. 369, 92 S. W. 330, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 733 and note; Fox v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co., 204 N. Y. 240, 97 N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1913C 745 and note, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 394.

2. Means v. Southern California R. Co., 144 Cal. 473, 77 Pac. 1001, 1 Ann. Cas. 206 and note; Watson v. Manitou, etc., R. Co., 41 Colo. 138, 92 Pac. 17, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 916 and note; Pomponio v. New York, etc., R. Co., 66 Conn. 528, 34 Atl. 491, 50 A. S. R. 124, 32 L.R.A. 530; Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Ill. 182, 32 N. E. 182, 36 A. S. R. 376, 17 L.R.A. 588; Baltimore, etc., R.

Co. v. Slaughter, 167 Ind. 330, 79 N. E. 186, 119 A. S. R. 503, 7 L.R.A. (N.S.) 597; Parker v. Portland Pub. Co., 69 Me. 173, 31 Am. Rep. 262; Stevens v. Nichols, 155 Mass. 472, 29 N. E. 1150, 15 L.R.A. 459; Redigan v. Boston, etc., R. Co., 155 Mass. 44, 28 N. E. 1133, 31 A. S. R. 520, 14 L.R.A. 276; West v. Poor, 196 Mass. 183, 81 N. E. 960, 124 A. S. R. 541, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 936; Norris v. Hugh Nawn Contracting Co., 206 Mass. 58, 91 N. E. 886, 19 Ann. Cas. 424 and note, 31 L.R.A. (N.S.) 623; Klugherz v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 90 Minn. 17, 95 N. W. 586, 101 A. S. R. 384; Widing v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 95 Minn. 279, 104 N. W. 239, 111 A. S. R. 471; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Arnola, 78 Miss. 787, 29 So. 768, 84 A. S. R. 645; Larmore v. Crown Point Iron Co., 101 N. Y. 391, 4 N. E. 752, 54 Am. Rep. 718; Cusick v. Adams, 115 N. Y. 55, 21 N. E. 673, 12 A. S. R. 772; Sterger v. Van Sicklen, 132 N. Y. 499, 30 N. E. 987, 28 A. S. R. 594, 16 L.R.A. 640; Weitzmann v. A. L. Barber Asphalt Co., 190 N. Y. 452, 83 N. E. 477, 123 A. S. R. 560 and note; Fox v. WarnerQuinlan Asphalt Co., 204 N. Y. 240, 97 N. E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1913C 745, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 395; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Workman, 66 Ohio St. 509, 64

upon the premises without right is the same; merely not wilfully and intentionally to injure them, or as it sometimes is expressednot to injure them after becoming aware of their presence. To warrant a recovery for an injury, a trespasser must show that it was wantonly inflicted, or that the owner or occupant being present could have prevented the injury by the exercise of ordinary care after discovering the danger.1 And the rule herein stated is declared, according to the expressions of many opinions, to be applicable to Ichildren as well as to adults. While it sometimes has been asserted