Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Matzdorf

• Decision Date: 28 October 1908
• Citation: 112 S.W. 1036
• Court: Texas Supreme Court
• Parties: GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. MATZDORF.

112 S.W. 1036

GALVESTON, H. & S. A. RY. CO. v. MATZDORF.

Supreme Court of Texas.

October 28, 1908.

Error to Court of Civil Appeals of Fourth Supreme Judicial District.

Action by Ida Matzdorf against the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (107 S. W. 882), and defendant brings error. Reversed and rendered.

Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, Newton & Ward, and Teagarden & Teagarden, for plaintiff in error. John Sehorn, for defendant in error.

WILLIAMS, J.

The judgment in this case was recovered against the plaintiff in error by defendant in error, plaintiff below, on account of a fall which she received in entering the waiting room for passengers kept by the railroad company at San Antonio. The fall was caused by a piece of wire projecting from a door mat, which penetrated plaintiff's shoe as she stepped upon it. Plaintiff was not a passenger, and had not gone to the station upon any business with the company or with any passenger. One Mrs. Simpson, intending to take passage for a temporary absence, went to the station accompanied by her husband and children. Mrs. Nicholls and plaintiff went with them; plaintiff going upon the invitation of Mrs. Nicholls to accompany her, and to bid Mrs. Simpson goodby. Upon these facts the question is whether or not the plaintiff has a cause of action arising from a failure of the defendant to keep the waiting room and its approaches in safe condition, which is the only theory upon which the judgment is defended. If she is to be regarded as there upon an implied invitation from the defendant, the question should be answered affirmatively. If she was no more than a mere licensee, it should be resolved in the negative. City of Greenville v. Pitts (Tex.) 107 S. W. 50, 16 L. R. A. 979.

Those who keep premises for the carrying on of business with the public impliedly invite people to come and transact business with them, and from this invitation arises the duty to keep the premises in suitable condition for use by those accepting it. Common carriers of passengers in this way extend invitations to persons desiring transportation as passengers and owe to them the resulting duty. The attendance and assistance of others is often necessary or convenient to passengers, and the invitation to them includes the right to have others with them to assist them in attending to the details incident to departure or arrival. Hence such persons are entitled, in right of the passenger, to the use of the carrier's premises. The domestic relation and the ties of kinship and the usages incident thereto make it so customary as to be looked upon as a matter of course for persons sustaining such relations to attend the arrivals and departures of each other upon and from journeys. The existence of such relations, therefore, may often properly be regarded as sufficient to include within the invitation to the traveler those who so naturally are to be expected to attend his going or to await...