in a reasonably safe condition and will be liable for injuries sustained in consequence of a failure so to do." In such cases the plaintiff must not only show an invitation express or implied, but also that at the time the injury was received he was in a part into which he was invited to go and that he was using the premises in a manner authorized by the invitation. An invitation may be inferred when there is a common interest or mutual advantage, a license when the object is the mere pleasure or benefit of the person using it. The status of • Malone v. Hawley, 46 Cal. 409; Rosenberg v. Durfee, 87 Cal. 545, 26 Pac. 793; Atlanta Cotton Seed Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145, 4 S. E. 759, 12 Am. St. Rep. 244; Archer v. Blalock, 97 Ga. 719, 25 S. E. 391; Fairbank v. Hoentzsche, 73 Ill. 236; Nave v. Flack, 90 Ind. 205, 46 Am. Rep. 205; Brosnan v. Sweetser, 127 Ind. 1, 26 N. E. 555; Burk v. Walsh, 118 Ia. 397, 92 N. W. 65; Stratton v. Staples, 59 Me. 94; Foran v. Rodick, 90 Me. 276, 38 Atl. 175; Elliott v. Pray, 10 Allen, 378; Gilbert v. Nagle, 118 Mass. 278; McIntire v. Roberts, 149 Mass. 450, 22 N. E. 13, 14 Am. St. Rep. 432, 4 L. R. A. 519; Little v. Holyoke, 177 Mass. 114, 58 N. E. 170, 52 L. R. A. 417; Toland v. Paine Furn. Co., 179 Mass. 501, 61 N. E. 52; Lepnick v. Gaddis, 72 Miss. 200, 16 So. 213, 26 L. R. A. 686; True v. Meredith Creamery Co., 72 N. H. 154, 55 Atl. 893; Totten v. Phipps, 52 N. Y. 354; Swords v. Edgar, 59 N. Y. 28, 17 Am. Rep. 295; Hilsenbeck v. Guhring, 131 N. Y. 674, 30 N. E. 580; Swinarton v. Le Boutillier, 7 Misc. 639, 28 N. Y. S. 53; Hydraulic Works v. Orr, 83 Pa. St. 332; Schilling v. Abernethy, 112 Pa. St. 437; Clapp v. Mear, 134 Pa. St. 203, 19 Atl. 504; Freer v. Cameron, 4 Rich. 228, 55 Am. Dec. 663; League v. Stradley, 68 S. C. 515, 47 S. E. 975; Rosenbaum v. Shoffner, 98 Tenn. 624, 40 S. W. 1086; Pierce v. Whitcomb, 48 Vt. 127, 21 Am. Rep. 120; Chapman v. Rothwell, El., Bl. & El. 168. So a church is liable to a member of another society attending service by invitation for defects in its premises. Davis v. Centr. Cong. Soc., 129 Mass. 367, 37 Am. Rep. 368. 7 Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565, 22 Pac. 256, 5 L. R. A. 580; Holbrook v. Aldrich, 168 Mass. 15, 46 N. E. 115, 60 Am. St. Rep. 364, 36 L. R. A. 493; Ryerson v. Bathgate, 67 N. J. L. 337, 51 Atl. 708, 57 L. R. A. 307. Campbell, Neg. § 44, quoted and aproved in Bennett v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 577, 584, 585, and in Archer v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 110 Mo. App. 349, 353. "One who puts a building or part of a building to use in a business, and fits it up so as to show the use to which it is adapted, impliedly invites all persons to come there whose coming is naturally incident to the prosecution of the business. If the place is open, the social guest is somewhat uncertain. A United States revenue officer assigned to duty at a distillery and required to visit all parts of the same daily, is there at the implied invitation of the owner.10 Though one is invited to go upon the defendant's premises on business, yet if a part is given over to repairs or building operations, the invitation is impliedly withdrawn as to such part, and one goes there at his own risk.11 § 360. Liability to licensees and trespassers. One whose unenclosed grounds people cross without objection is not liable to one who falls into an unguarded cistern there.12 The owner of a and there is nothing to indicate that strangers are not wanted, he impliedly permits and licenses persons to come there for their own convenience, or to gratify their curiosity. The mere fact that premises are fitted conveniently for use by the owner or his tenants, and by those who come to transact such business as is carried on there, does not constitute an implied invitation to strangers to come and use the place for purposes of their own. To such persons it gives no more than an implied license to come for any other purpose." Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426, 31 N. E. 128, 32 Am. St. Rep. 463. The plaintiff wishing to visit a friend went to the wrong building and fell into an open elevator shaft. Held a licensee. McCarvell v. Sawyer, 173 Mass. 540, 54 N. E. 259, 73 Am. St. Rep. 318. The servant of an independent contractor engaged in papering certain rooms in the defendant's house, stepped out on a balcony, where his work did not require him to go but solely for his own convenience in calling to another workman, and was injured by the fall of the balcony. Held no lia bility. Smith v. Trimble, 111 Ky. 861, 64 S. W. 915. And see Barker v. Boston Elec. Lt. Co., 178 Mass. 503, 60 N. E. 2. • See 2 Shear. & R. Neg. § 706; Burdick, Torts, p. 457. 10 Anderson & Nelson Distilleries Co. v. Hair, 103 Ky. 196, 44 S. W. 658. 11 Downes v. Elmira Bridge Co., 179 N. Y. 136, 141, 71 N. E. 743. 12 Hargreaves V. Deacon, 25 Mich. 1; or into a pond of surface water. Klix v. Nieman, 68 Wis. 271, 32 N. W. 223; Schmidt v. Kansas City, etc., Co., 90 Mo. 284, 59 Am. Rep. 16; Overholt v. Vieths, 93 Mo. 422, 6 S. W. 74; or a pit, Morgan v. Penn. etc., Co., 19 Blatchf. 239; Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. St. 74, 27 Am. Rep. 684; Early v. Lake Shore, etc., Co., 66 Mich. 349, 33 N. W. 813. But see Mackey v. Vicksburg, 64 Miss. 777; Evansville, etc., Co. v. Griffin, 100 Ind. 221, 50 Am. Rep. 783; Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Pa. St. 144, 45 Am. Rep. 365. If one comes on premises to see for his own benefit a person employed there, he is not invited to enter. Galveston Oil Co. v. Morton, 70 Tex. 400, 7 S. W. 756; Dixon v. Swift, 98 Me. 207, 56 Atl. 761. vessel is not liable to a servant employed upon it who, in wandering about the vessel from curiosity, falls through a scuttle.13 On the request of the principal of a school, the graduating class was permitted to visit the defendant's power house in order to examine its works and machinery. One of the class fell into a vat of hot water in a dimly lighted part of the building. The visitors were held to be mere licensees and the defendant was held to owe them no duty to make the premises safe for their use.14 Firemen who enter a building in case of fire are licensees merely and the owner or occupant is not liable for their injury by reason of any defects or unguarded pitfalls, or other dangers.15 And the general rule supported by the authorities is that the owner or occupant of premises owes no duty to licensees and trespassers, further than to refrain from willful acts of injury.18 13 Severy V. Nickerson, 120 Mass. 306, 21 Am. Rep. 514. See, for cases like this in principle, Pierce v. Whitcomb, 48 Vt. 127, 21 Am. Rep. 120; and Caniff v. Blanchard Nav. Co., 66 Mich. 638, 33 N. W. 744. So if without invitation a stranger goes aboard. Metcalfe v. Cunard S. S. Co., 147 Mass. 66, 16 N. E. 701. 14 Benson v. Baltimore Traction Co., 77 Md. 535, 26 Atl. 973, 39 Am. St. Rep. 436, 20 L. R. A. 714. 15 Gibson v. Leonard, 143. Ill. 182, 32 N. E. 182, 36 Am. St. Rep. 376, 17 L. R. A. 588; Woodruff v. Bowen, 136 Ind. 431, 34 N. E. 1113, 22 L. R. A. 198; Hamilton v. Minneapolis Desk Mfg. Co., 78 Minn. 3, 80 N. W. 693, 79 Am. St. Rep. 350; Baker v. Otis Elevator Co., 78 App. Div. 513, 79 N. Y. S. 663; Eckes v. Stetler, 98 App. Div. 76, 90 N. Y. S. 473; Beehler v. Daniels, 18 R. I. 563, 29 Atl. 6, 49 Am. St. Rep. 790, 27 L. R. A. 512. It is held to make no difference that the negligence alleged is in leaving an elevator shaft un guarded in violation of an ordinance or statute, as such regulation is not for the benefit of firemen. Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Ill. 182, 32 N. E. 182, 36 Am. St. Rep. 376, 17 L. R. A. 588; Hamilton v. Minneapolis Desk Mfg. Co., 78 Minn. 3, 80 N. W. 693, 79 Am. St. Rep. 350. 16 Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Sides, 129 Ala. 399, 29 So. 798; Means v. Southern Cal. Ry. Co., 144 Cal. 473, 77 Pac. 1001; Butler v. Lewman, 115 Ga. 752, 42 S. E. 98; Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Il 182, 32 N. E. 182, 36 Am. St. Rep. 376, 17 L. R. A. 588; Faris v. Hoberg, 134 Ind. 269, 276, 33 N. E. 1028, 39 Am. St. Rep. 261; Wagner v. Chicago, etc., Ry. Co., 124 Ia. 462, 100 N. W. 332; Lackart v. Lutz, 94 Ky. 287, 22 S. W. 218; Mergenthaler v. Kirby, 79 Md. 182, 28 Atl. 1065, 47 Am. St. Rep. 371; Zoebisch v. Tarbell, 10 Allen, 385, 87 Am. Dec. 660; Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass. 267, 21 N. E. 369; Sullivan v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 156 Mass. 378, 31 § 361. Liability to trespassing children. Some cases make an exception to the general rule in case of children of tender years, where the owner or occupant of premises maintains or permits thereon something attractive to children and also dangerous to N. E. 128; Hart v. Cole, 156 Mass. 475, 31 N. E. 644, 16 L. R. A. 557; Blatt v. McBarron, 161 Mass. 21, 36 N. E. 468, 42 Am. St. Rep. 385; Shea v. Gurney, 163 Mass. 184, 39 N. E. 996, 47 Am. St. Rep. 446; Blackston v. Chelmsford Foundry Co., 170 Mass. 321, 49 N. E. 635; Moffatt v. Kenny, 174 Mass. 311, 54 N. E. 850; Fornall v. Standard Oil Co., 127 Mich. 496, 86 N. W. 946; Trask v. Shotwell, 41 Minn. 66, 42 N. W. 699; Fredenburg v. Baer, 89 Minn. 241, 94 N. W. 683; Buch v. Amory Mfg. Co., 69 N. H. 257, 44 Atl. 809, 76 Am. St. Rep. 163; Mathews v. Bensel, 51 N. J. L. 30, 16 Atl. 195; Fitzpatrick v. Cumberland Glass Mfg. Co., 61 N. J. L. 378, 39 Atl. 675; Cusick v. Adams, 115 N. Y. 55, 21 N. E. 673, 12 Am. St. Rep. 772; Magar v. Hammond, 183 N. Y. 387; Emry v. Roanoke Nav., etc., Co., 111 N. C. 94, 16 S. E. 18, 17 L. R. A. 699; O'Leary v. Brooks Elevator Co., 7 N. D. 554, 75 N. W. 919, 41 L. R. A. 677; Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. St. 74, 27 Am. Rep. 684; Gillespie v. McGowan, 100 Pa. St. 144, 45 Am. Rep. 365; Horstick v. Dunkle, 145 Pa. St. 220, 23 Atl. 378, 27 Am. St. Rep. 685; Magner v. Frankford Baptist Church, 174 Pa. St. 84, 34 Atl. 456; Clapp v. La Grill, 103 Tenn. 164, 52 S. W. 134; Williams v. Nashville, 106 Tenn. 533, 63 S. W. 231; Brehmer . Lyman, 71 Vt. 98, 42 Atl. 613; Anderson v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 19 Wash. 340, 63 Pac. 345; Woolwine v. Chesapeake, etc., Ry. Co., 36 W. Va. 329, 15 S. E. 81, 32 Am. St. Rep. 859, 16 L. R. A. 271. In Louisiana it is held that where one knowingly leaves open his land under circumstances calculated to lead others to think that they are invited to use it, he impliedly invites the public to such use and is under a duty to keep it reasonably safe. Lawson V. Shreveport W. W. Co., 111 La. 73, 35 So. 390. Where the plaintiff's eye was put out by the explosion of a giant fire cracker in a show tent, the explosion being a part of the performance, it was held to be no defense that the plaintiff was a trespasser in the tent, he being one of the audience and his presence known. Herrick v. Wixom, 121 Mich. 384, 81 N. W. 333. The explosion of the cracker, under the circumstances, might be regarded as 80 reckless as to amount to a willful injury. As to 'trespassers on railroad tracks and cars, see: Georgia Pac. R. R. Co. v. Blanton, 84 Ala. 154, 4 So. 621; Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Black, 89 Ala. 313, 8 So. 246; Toomey v. Southern Pac. R. R. Co., 86 Cal. 374, 24 Pac. 1074, 10 L. R. A. 139; Snyder v. Natchez, etc., R. R. Co., 42 La. Ann. 302, 7 So. 582; Kelly v. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 65 Mich. 186, 31 N. W. 904, 8 Am. St. Rep. 876; Hepfel v. St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co., 49 Minn. 263, 51 N. W. 1049; Barker v. Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co., 98 Mo. them if meddled with, and in a locality frequented by them, without anything to warn them or keep them out of the danger. What are known as the "turntable cases" are of this character. A railroad turntable is a machine attractive to children and a dangerous plaything, and to leave one in a place frequented by children unlocked and unguarded is held to be negligence, that will render the company liable to a child injured while playing thereon and who is too young to appreciate the danger and take care of himself.17 The rule has been extended to dangerous machinery in general.18 "To impose the duty of care, the machine must be such that it is dangerous for very young children to play with or about it; it must be of such character that such children would naturally be attracted to play with or about it, and it 50, 11 S. W. 254; Smalley v. Southern Ry. Co., 57 S. C. 243, 35 S. E. 489; Seaboard, etc., R. R. Co. v. Joyner, 92 Va. 354, 23 S. E. 773; Tucker v. Norfolk, etc., R. R. Co., 92 Va. 549, 24 S. E. 229; Washington v. Quayle, 95 Va. 741, 30 S. E. 391; O. R. & N. Co. v. Egley, 2 Wash. 409, 26 Pac. 973. Where people are accustomed to cross a track on the private property of the company with its knowledge, they are not trespassers. Cahill v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 74 Fed. 285, 20 C. C. A. 184; Felton v. Ambrey, 74 Fed. 350, 20 C. C. A. 436. 17 Barrett v. Southern Pac. Co., 91 Cal. 296, 27 Pac. 666, 25 Am. St. Rep. 186; Callahan v. Eel Riv er, etc., R. R. Co., 92 Cal. 89, 28 Pac. 104; Ferguson v. Columbus, etc., Ry. Co., 77 Ga. 102; Kansas Central Ry. Co. v. Fitzsimmons, 22 Kan. 686; Keffe v. Milwaukee, etc., Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 207; O'Malley v. St. Paul, etc., Ry. Co., 43 Minn. 289, 45 N. W. 440; Koons v. St. Louis, etc., R. R. Co., 65 Mo. 592; Nagel v. Missouri Pac. R. R. Co., 75 Mo. 653; Chicago, etc., R. R. Co. v. Krayenbuhl, 65 Neb. 889, 91 N. W. 880, 59 L. R. A. 920; Railroad Co. V. Cargille, 105 Tenn. 628, 59 S. W. 141; Evanisch v. Gulf, etc., Ry. Co., 57 Tex. 126; Houston, etc., R. R. Co. v. Simpson, 60 Tex. 103; Gulf, etc., R. R. Co. v. Styson, 66 Tex. 421; Gulf, etc., Ry. Co. v. McWhirter, 77 Tex. 356, 14 S. W. 26, 19 Am. St. Rep. 755; San Antonio, etc., Ry. Co. v. Morgan, 92 Tex. 98, 46 S. W. 28; Ilwaco Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Hedrich, 1 Wash. 446, 25 Pac. 335, 346, 22 Am. St. Rep. 169; Railroad Co. v. Stout 17 Wall. 657. 18 Barrett v. Southern Pac. Co., 91 Cal. 296, 303, 27 Pac. 666, 25 Am. St. Rep. 186; Coppner v. Penn. etc., Co., 12 Ill. App. 600; Osage City v. Larkin, 40 Kan. 206, 19 Pac. 658, 10 Am. St. Rep. 186, 2 L. R. A. 56; Consolidated E. L. & P. Co. v. Healy, 65 Kan. 798, 70 Pac. 884: Powers v. Harlow, 53 Mich. 507, 51 Am. Rep. 154. |