Costello v. Farmers' Bank of Golden Valley

• Decision Date: 24 April 1916
• Docket Number: 1915
• Citation: 157 N.W. 982,34 N.D. 131
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

157 N.W. 982

34 N.D. 131

P. J. COSTELLO v. FARMERS BANK OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a Corporation

No. 1915

Supreme Court of North Dakota

April 24, 1916

Appeal from the District Court of Mercer County, S. L. Nuchols, J.

From a judgment in defendant's favor, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

F. E McCurdy, for appellant.

It is true that a trespasser or mere licensee, going upon the premises of another, goes at his own risk, and the owner owes no duty to him to protect him from injury. But where defendant by his conduct has induced the public to use a way in the belief that it is a street or highway, and where they suppose they will be safe, an exception to the rule above stated at once arises and renders defendant liable for injuries sustained by one so using such street or highway. 29 Cyc. 450, 451; 3 Shearm. & Redf. Neg. § 706; Black v. Central R. Co. 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1215, and case note 85 N.J.L. 197, 89 A. 24; Case note to Habina v. Twin City General Electric Co. 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1126; Holmes v Drew, 151 Mass. 578, 25 N.E. 22; Brinilson v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 144 Wis. 614, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 359, 129 N.W. 664; Sweeney v. Old Colony & N. R. Co. 10 Allen, 368, 87 Am. Dec. 644; Barry v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 92 N.Y. 289, 44 Am. Rep. 377; Beck v. Carter, 68 N.Y. 283, 23 Am. Rep. 175; DeBoer v. Brooklyn Wharf Warehouse Co. 51 A.D. 289, 64 N.Y.S. 925; Larmore v. Crown Point Iron Co. 101 N.Y. 391, 54 Am. Rep. 718, 4 N.E. 752; Hanson v. Spokane Valley Land & Water Co. 58 Wash. 6, 107 P. 863; Phipps v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. 161 F. 376.

In this case the general public were accustomed to use that portion of the north lot of the defendant's as a highway, and the defendant, making an excavation there, was bound to protect the people against injury. He owed them this duty. Lerner v. Philadelphia, 21 L.R.A.(N.S.) 630, note; Knoxville v. Cain, 48 L.R.A.(N.S.) 632, note; 25 Cyc. 643.

Newton, Dullam, & Young, for respondent.

Actionable negligence is simply a failure to exercise that diligence and skill which is imposed by some legal duty to the person injured. Where there is no such duty, there can be no negligence. O'Leary v. Brooks Elevator Co. 7 N.D. 554, 41 L.R.A. 677, 75 N.W. 919, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 451; Trask v. Shotwell, 41 Minn. 66, 42 N.W. 699; Thomp. Neg. § 1228.

There is no such duty owing to a trespasser or mere licensee. In such case it is only necessary that one refrain from the wanton or wilful injury of another. Fisher v. Clark, 41 Barb. 329; Sweeny v. Old Colony & N. R. Co. 10 Allen, 368, 87 Am. Dec. 644; Phillips v. Library Co. 55 N.J.L. 307, 27 A. 478; Cusick v. Adams, 115 N.Y. 59, 12 Am. St. Rep. 772, 21 N.E. 673; Gramlich v. Wurst, 86 Pa. 74, 27 Am. Rep. 684.

When the owner of land makes an excavation thereon at some distance from the way and the person falling into it would be a trespasser upon the owner's land before he reached the excavation, there is no liability. Hardcastle v. South Yorkshire R. Co. 4 Hurlst. & N. 67, 28 L. J. Exch. N. S. 139, 5 Jur. N. S. 150, 7 Week. Rep. 326; Ryan v. Towar, 128 Mich. 463, 55 L.R.A. 310, 92 Am. St. Rep. 481, 87 N.W. 644; Briscoe v. Henderson Lighting & P. Co. 148 N.C. 396, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1116, 62 S.E. 600; Johnson v. Paducah Laundry Co. 122 Ky. 369, 5 L.R.A.(N.S.) 733, 92 S.W. 330.

Plaintiff here was a trespasser at the time of his injury. He was not invited to enter upon defendant's premises, either actually or by implication. An implied invitation to enter upon premises exists where benefit accrues to the one who extends such invitation, as where the property is designed or used by the owner for public purposes which are of interest or advantage to himself, and then used in seasonable hours. Parker v. Portland Pub. Co. 69 Me. 173, 31 Am. Rep. 262; Trask v. Shotwell, supra; Thomp. Neg. §§ 985, 988, 990; Corrigan v. Elsinger, 81 Minn. 42, 83 N.W. 492, 8 Am. Neg. Rep. 262; Hart v. Grennell, 122 N.Y. 371, 25 N.E. 354; Cowen v. Kirby, 180 Mass. 504, 62 N.E. 968, 11 Am. Neg. Rep. 261; McClain v. Caribou Nat. Bank, 100 Me. 437, 62 A. 144; Zoebisch v. Tarbell, 10 Allen, 385, 87 Am. Dec. 660; Schmidt v. Bauer, 80 Cal. 565, 5 L.R.A. 580, 22 P. 256; Walker v. Winstanley, 155 Mass. 301, 29 N.E. 518; Peake v. Buell, 90 Wis. 508, 48 Am. St. Rep. 946, 63 N.W. 1053; Flanagan v. Atlantic Alcatraz Asphalt Co. 37 A.D. 476, 56 N.Y.S. 18, 5 Am. Neg. Rep. 694; Menteer v. Scalzo Fruit Co. 240 Mo. 177, 144 S.W. 833; Herzog v. Hemphill, 7 Cal.App. 116, 93 P. 899; Ryerson v. Bathgate, 67 N.J.L. 337, 57 L.R.A. 307, 51 A. 708, 11 Am. Neg. Rep. 300; Watson v. Manitou & P. P. R. Co. 41 Colo. 138, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 916, 92 P. 17.

The plaintiff here was acting in his own interests, without inducement, and at his own peril, when he went voluntarily in search of the cashier. Gorr v. Mittlestaedt, 96 Wis. 296, 71 N.W. 656; Reeves v. French, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 220, 45 S.W. 771, 46 S.W. 217, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 155; Thompson v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 218 Pa. 444, 19 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1162, 120 Am. Rep. 897, 67 A. 768, 11 Ann. Cas. 894; Klix v. Nieman, 68 Wis. 271, 60 Am. Rep. 854, 32 N.W. 223; Horstick v. Dinkle, 145 Pa. 220, 27 Am. St. Rep. 685, 23 A. 378; Breckenridge v. Bennett, 7 Kulp, 95; Mistler v. O'Grady, 132 Mass. 139; Howland v. Vincent, 10 Met. 317, 43 Am. Dec. 442.

There was no established way or path along the line traveled by plaintiff. Acquiescence in use does not grant right. Beck v. Carter, 68 N.Y. 282, 23 Am. Rep. 175; Habina v. Twin City General Electric Co. 15 Mich. 41, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1126, 113 N.W. 586; Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass. 267, 21 N.E. 369; Thomp. Neg. 2d ed. 1050, note; Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. Griffin, 100 Ind. 221, 50 Am. Rep. 684; Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co. 99 Mass. 216; Redigan v. Boston & M. R. Co. 155 Mass. 44, 14 L.R.A. 276, 31 Am. St. Rep. 520, 28 N.E. 1133.

The only thing that can here be said in favor of plaintiff's action in using the path is that defendant had never forbidden the public to use it. Under such circumstances plaintiff was a mere licensee, to whom defendant owed no duty, under the general rule. Brinilson v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 144 Wis. 614, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 359, 129 N.W. 664.

Plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. He had departed from the provided way of access. He was acting without defendant's inducement, voluntarily, in his own interests, and at his own peril. Rooney v. Woolworth, 74 Conn. 720, 52 A. 411; Bedell v. Berkey, 76 Mich. 435, 15 Am. St. Rep. 370, 43 N.W. 308; Greenwell v. Washington Market Co. 21 D. C. 298; Sweeney v. Barrett, 151 Pa. 600, 25 A. 148; Bridger v. Gresham, 111 Ga. 814, 35 S.E. 677, 7 Am. Neg. Rep. 524; De Graffenried v. Wallace, 2 Ind. Terr. 657, 53 S.W. 452; Downs v. Elmira Bridge Co. 179 N.Y. 136, 71 N.E. 743; Fox v. Warner-Quinlan Asphalt Co. 204 N.Y. 240, 38 L.R.A.(N.S.) 395, 97 N.E. 497, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 745; Polk v. Spokane Interstate Fair, 73 Wash. 610, 132 P. 401; McKenzie v. Lewis, 31 N. S. 408; Lanigan v. New York Gaslight Co. 71 N.Y. 29.

The mere fact that a person has had an opportunity to learn of a defect or danger is evidence of knowledge of it. La Riviere v. Pemberton, 46 Minn. 5, 48 N.W. 406; Hinz v. Starin, 46 Hun, 526, 10 N.Y.S. 671.

Plaintiff failed to use ordinary care to discover and avoid danger. Ramsdell v. Jordan, 168 Mass. 505, 47 N.E. 244, 3 Am. Neg. Rep. 47; Bedell v. Berkey, 76 Mich. 435, 15 Am. St. Rep. 370, 43 N.W. 308; Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341, 51 N.W. 1043; Worthington v. Wade, 82 Tex. 26, 17 S.W. 520; Baumann v. Metropolitan Street R. Co. 21 Misc. 658, 47 N.Y.S. 1094; Cowen v. Kirby, 180 Mass. 504, 62 N.E. 968, 11 Am. Neg. Rep. 261; Sickles v. New Jersey Ice Co. 153 N.Y. 83, 46 N.E. 1042, 2 Am. Neg. Rep. 410; Bentley v. Loverock, 102 Ill.App. 166; Lackat v. Lutz, 94 Ky. 287, 22 S.W. 218; Daley v. Kinsman, 182 Mass. 306, 65 N.W. 385, 13 Am. Neg. Rep. 95; Kiander v. Brookline Gaslight Co. 179 Mass. 341, 60 N.E. 796; Campbell v. Abbott, 176 Mass. 246, 57 N.E. 462; Brugher v. Buchtenkirch, 167 N.Y. 153, 60 N.E. 420; Massey v. Seller, 45 Ore. 267, 77 P. 397, 16 Am. Neg. Rep. 553; Sweeny v. Barrett, 151 Pa. 600, 25 A. 148; Forsyth v. Boston & A. R. Co. 103 Mass. 513; Steger v. Immen, 157 Mich. 494, 24 L.R.A.(N.S.) 247, 122 N.W. 104; Reed v. Axtell, 84 Va. 231, 48 S.E. 587, 10 Am. Neg. Cas. 346; Dailey v. Distler, 115 A.D. 102, 100 N.Y.S. 679; Hammock v. Tacoma, 44 Wash. 623, 87 P. 924; Bills v. Salt Lake City, 37 Utah 507, 109 P. 745; Lautenbacher v. Philadelphia, 217 Pa. 318, 66 A. 549; Glaser v. Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1045, 120 S.W. 1, 17 Ann. Cas. 576; Dobbins v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 91 Tex. 60, 38 L.R.A. 573, 66 Am. St. Rep. 856, 41 S.W. 62; Davis v. California Street Cable R. Co. 105 Cal. 131, 38 P. 647; Reynolds v. Los Angeles Gas & Electric Co. 162 Cal. 327, 39 L.R.A.(N.S.) 896, 122 P. 962, Ann. Cas. 1913D, 34; Anderson v. Northern P. R. Co. 19 Wash. 340, 53 P. 345, 4 Am. Neg. Rep. 235.

OPINION

FISK, Ch. J.

Plaintiff received injuries by falling into an excavation on defendant's property, and he seeks to recover damages therefor. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: The accident occurred between 6 [34 N.D. 136] and 7 o'clock in the evening of January 18, 1914, on lot 6 of block 3 of the town of Golden Valley, North Dakota. This town at that time was only about two months old, and the streets had not been graded nor sidewalks built, and there was nothing there other than the surveyors' stakes to mark the street and lot lines. Lot 6, aforesaid, is in the northeast corner of block 3. At the north is Main street and on the east, Central avenue. Defendant had a temporary bank building located adjacent to the line of Central avenue, which building faced north, the door being in the north end and at the extreme northeast corner of the building. The...