Cowen v. Kirby
| Decision Date | 27 February 1902 |
| Citation | 180 Mass. 504,62 N.E. 968 |
| Parties | COWEN v. KIRBY et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Thos Weston and Daniel T. Devoll, for plaintiff.
L. LeB. Holmes and B. B. Barney, for defendants.
The defendants kept a stable situated at the corner of two streets, and as a part of their business took in for keeping and care the vehicles and horses of those persons who might come for that service. Upon the ground floor was a large room, into which teams were driven from one of the streets and in which horses were unhitched and hitched up and vehicles were stored. Out of this room opened a number of doors, one of which led to stalls where the horses were kept two led to harness rooms, one to a ladies' waiting room and one to an office. The two latter doors were near the team entrance, and the waiting room and the office had outer doors, also, giving entrance from the other street. The plaintiff drove his horse and wagon into the stable, and got out of the wagon. Hostlers unhitched the horse, and backed the wagon to the wall opposite the entrance. The plaintiff followed the wagon back, and put his driving gloves into it and upon receiving a numbered check for his team left the stable. It does not appear that while he was there anything was said by any one. After some hours he re-entered by the carriage door, and walked across the room, intending to place some packages in his wagon, which remained where he had seen it placed. Other wagons had been put in the room in the meantime, and one of these was immediately in front of his. He passed to the left of the front wagon. About two feet to the left of his wagon was a post, and, not choosing to pass between the wagon and the post, he swung himself around the post, and then leaned toward his wagon to put his packages into it. The post was in fact a part of the apparatus of a hoisting machine used to carry vehicles between the ground floor and the upper floors of the stable. While the plaintiff was leaning toward his wagon, the hoist, loaded with a vehicle, descended upon him. Whether he can recover for his injury depends upon whether, at the time and place where he was when hurt, he was more than a mere licensee, and, if so, whether he was in the exercise of due care. The fact that a person enters a place of business as a customer does not give him the right to expect that every part of the premises shall be so arranged and kept that he may be in safety. He knows the purpose for which they are used, and must assume that they will be prepared and adapted for that purpose, and must take notice of that preparation and adaptation, at least so far as it is obvious. It is only those parts of the premises where customers are expected to be that the owner or occupant must keep in a suitable condition for them, and in such parts only has a customer a right to assume that care has been used to protect him from injury. He enters knowing that the place is not arranged merely for his own convenience. He may expect that he will be safe in conducting himself as a customer is expected to act, but he has no right to expect that he will be safe if he oversteps that limit. The owner, without being in fault, may adapt his premises to his business, and may use them in the way for which they were designed, unless in so doing he exposes the customer to some danger which the latter has the right to expect he will not be exposed to, and the customer must expect to find such appliances and such uses of the premises as are involved in the prosecution of the business. If, without some special invitation,...
To continue reading
Request your trial