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.
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.,[146] 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.
Action for damage to plaintiff’s horse.[148] 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.
The judgment of the Court (Erle, C. J., Willes, Keating, and Montague Smith, JJ.) was delivered by[150]
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[151] 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.[152]
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.