Hyde v. Atlanta & W. P. R. Co

• Decision Date: 17 June 1933
• Docket Number: Nos. 22918, 22951.,s. 22918, 22951.
• Citation: 169 S.E. 854,47 Ga.App. 139
• Parties: HYDE. v. ATLANTA & W. P. R. CO. ATLANTA & W. P. R. CO. v. HYDE.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

47 Ga.App. 139

169 S.E. 854

HYDE.

v.ATLANTA & W. P. R. CO.

ATLANTA & W. P. R. CO.

v.HYDE.

Nos. 22918, 22951.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

June 17, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. One who enters the premises or platform of a railroad company at a station, for the purpose of seeing a passenger, who is

passing the station on a train, on business purely personal as between them, occupies, as to the railroad company, the position of a licensee, and not of an invitee. This is true, although the passenger may have "sent word" to such person to come to the train to talk to him while passing through. In such case there is no mutuality of interest so far as the railroad company is concerned.

2. The court did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the petition as amended.

Error from City Court of Newnan; W. L. Stallings, Judge.

Suit by Alvin M. Hyde against the Atlanta & West Point Railroad Company. Demurrer to petition was sustained, and plaintiff brings error, defendant filing a cross-bill of exceptions.

Affirmed on main bill of exceptions, and cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.

This is the second appearance of this case in this court. See Atlanta & West Point R. Co. v. Hyde, 45 Ga. App. 548, 165 S. E. 466. Exceptions were taken to the overruling of the demurrer filed by the railroad company, and this court held that the demurrer should have been sustained and the petition dismissed. Before the filing of the remittitur in the court below, the plaintiff tendered an amendment, which was allowed over the objection of the defendant, and, after a hearing of the demurrer to the petition as amended, the court sustained the demurrer. Exceptions to the order sustaining the demurrer bring the case again to this court for determination. A cross-bill of exceptions was filed taking exception to the allowance of the amendment. The amendment was an amplification of the original petition, setting forth that the plaintiff was upon the premises of the railroad company by reason of having been invited thereon by a passenger on one of the defendant's trains, in order to transact business with the said passenger, such business being purely personal as between the alleged invitee and the passenger; that the business was to be conducted during the time the train was stopped at the depot of the defendant; that such invitation was delivered to petitioner by a third person acting for the prospective passenger, and that, acting solely in response to such invitation delivered by a third person informing him that a prospective passenger desired to see him on a matter of mutual interest to plaintiff and the passenger, he went to the depot of the defendant and the injuries complained of occurred. It was further alleged that it had been the custom of prospective and actual passengers on trains to invite and request friends and customers to meet them at anystation where the train was scheduled to stop, for the purpose of transacting business in which said passenger was interested with the party so invited; that this was a custom well known to the railroad company and not objected to by it; that petitioner is unable to state whether said prospective passenger was actually on said train or not.

Hall & Jones, of Newnan, for plaintiff in error.

Howell, Heyman & Bolding, and Allen Post, all of Atlanta, and Stanford Arnold, of Newnan, for defendant in error.

GUERRY, Judge (after stating the foregoing facts).

It becomes necessary to determine whether the allegations of the amendment are sufficient to withstand the ruling heretofore made by this court in this case. The petition originally alleged that the plaintiff went to the station "for the purpose of transacting some important business with a party, who petitioner was informed was a passenger on said train, said business being of interest to said, passenger and petitioner, being a matter of reciprocal concern to both." Does the amendment, setting out the name of the prospective passenger and the further allegation that petitioner was there upon the invitation of such passenger to transact business with which the defendant company was not concerned, take the petition as amended without the scope of the ruling heretofore made? We think not. If the relationship of the plaintiff to the defendant be that of trespasser or licensee, then there can be no recovery under the allegations as made, for the reason that no wanton or willful negligence is alleged, nor is there any allegations that any mantraps or pitfalls were being maintained by the defendant. Do the amendments offered make the relationship between the parties that of invitee and invitor? The Plummer v. Dill Case, 156 Mass. 426, 31 N. E. 128, 120, 32 Am. St. Rep. 463, is probably the leading case in decisions of this character and has been quoted approvingly by our courts of review. The real principle governing matters of this kind is set forth in the following language: "To come under an implied invitation, as distinguished from a mere license, the visitor must come for a purpose connected with the business in which the occupant is engaged, or which he permits to be carried on there." See Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513, 25 N. E. 978, 9 L. R. A. 640, 23 Am. St. Rep. 846; Rome Furnace Co. v. Patterson, 120 Ga. 521, 48 S. E. 166. In Gainesville & Gulf R. Co. v. Peck, 55 Fla. 402, 46 So. 1019, 1022, It is said: "A licensee is a person who is neither a passenger, servant, or trespasser, and not standing in any contractual relations to the railroad [owner of the premises], and is permitted * * * to come upon its premises for his own interests, convenience, or gratification." (Italics ours.) In the case of Jones v. Asa G. Candler, Inc., 22 Ga. App. 717, 97 S. E. 112, it was held that the owner of...