Beehler v. Daniels

• Decision Date: 01 May 1894
• Citation: 29 A. 6,18 R.I. 563
• Parties: BEEHLER v. DANIELS et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

29 A. 6

18 R.I. 563

BEEHLER

v. DANIELS et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

May 1, 1894.

Action by Henry R. Beehler against Daniels, Cornell & Co. for damages for personal injuries. Demurrer to declaration sustained.

Walter B. Vincent and Amasa M. Eaton, for plaintiff. W. G. Roelker, for defendants.

STINESS, J. The plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries 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 as 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 (Ind. Sup.) 34 N. E. 1113, 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, 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, 21 N. E. 369, 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, 16 Atl. 195, 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. Railway Co., L. R. 4 Exch. 254, Baron Channell says that, 'where a person is a mere licensee, he has no cause of action on account of the danger existing in the place he is...