60 So. 574 (Miss. 1913), Woodland Gin Co. v. Moore

Citation:60 So. 574, 103 Miss. 447
Opinion Judge:COOK, J.
Attorney:A. T. Stovall, for appellant. Joe H. Ford, for appellee.
Case Date:January 27, 1913
Court:Supreme Court of Mississippi

Page 574

60 So. 574 (Miss. 1913)

103 Miss. 447




Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 27, 1913

October, 1912

APPEAL from the circuit court of Chickasaw county, HON. H. K. MAHON, Judge.

Suit by J. C. Moore against the Woodland Gin Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and dismissed.

A. T. Stovall, for appellant.

An owner allowing the public to use a path across his land is not bound to keep his entire premises in safe condition for pedestrians, and when a person leaves the path and wanders in a ditch partly concealed from view, the owner is not liable. 50 S.E. 1003.

Defendant was under no obligation to render her premises safe for any purpose for which she could not reasonably anticipate they would be used. 34 N.W. 566.

Obviously, the rule that a keeper of a public place of business is bound to keep his premises and the passageways in a safe condition, and use ordinary care to avoid accidents and injury to those properly entering upon the premises on business, does not apply to such parts of the building as are used for the private purposes of the owner, unless the party was induced by the invitation or allurement of the owner, expressed or implied, to enter thereon. 1 Thompson on Negligence, 989.

The owner of land owes no duty to a licensee who enters thereon of his own pleasure without inducement, except to refrain from doing him willful or wanton injury. 78 Miss. 787.

Plaintiff was not on business with the company but was upon its lot of land in pursuit of his own errand and pleasure. A person who, without invitation or inducement of the owner, goes upon the land or premises of the owner, takes such premises with all the dangers attending it. The appellee, in going upon the private lands of appellant took upon herself all such risks of such entry. The damages suffered by her are not an injury for which an action lies. 78 Miss. 787.

Whether trespasser or licensee it was still his duty to conduct himself with ordinary care and prudence for his own protection. Whether there be any real distinction between the duty owing to a trespasser and that owing to a licensee, the burden of exercising ordinary care is incumbent upon the party even if a licensee. He was not at the time at a place where duty called him, or invitation attracted him. 87 Miss. 488.

It has been reasoned that an invitation to the public having lawful business on an individual's premises, implied by the aspect of the house and grounds, does not cover the whole yard, irrespective of pathways, necessary lines of travel, or anything on the premises promising security. If for his own convenience, a person leave the usual and ordinary way, or for any other reason save a defect in the usual way, and seek to depart from the premises by another way, he remits himself to the condition of a bare licensee, so, that he cannot recover damages in case he is injured while so making his exit. 1 Thompson on Negligence, 990.

Bare licensees take the premises of the landowner as they find...

To continue reading