Smith v. Jewell Cotton Mill Co.

• Decision Date: 08 February 1923
• Docket Number: 13537.
• Citation: 116 S.E. 17,29 Ga.App. 461
• Parties: SMITH v. JEWELL COTTON MILL CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

116 S.E. 17

29 Ga.App. 461

SMITH v. JEWELL COTTON MILL CO.

No. 13537.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

February 8, 1923

Syllabus by the Court.

"Where the owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries occasioned by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe." Civ. Code 1910, § 4420. But "there is a clear distinction between a 'license' and an 'invitation' to enter premises, and an equally clear distinction as to the duty of the owner in the two cases. An owner owes to a licensee no duty as to the condition of premises, unless imposed by statute, save that he should not knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril, or willfully cause him harm; while to one invited he is under obligation for reasonable security for the purposes of the invitation." Mandeville Mills v. Dale, 2 Ga.App. 607, 611, 58 S.E. 1060, 1062; Rollestone v. Cassirer, 3 Ga.App. 161, 165, 59 S.E. 442; Jones v. Asa G. Candler Inc., 22 Ga.App. 717, 720, 97 S.E. 112; Beehler v Daniels, 18 R.I. 563, 565, 29 A. 6, 27 L.R.A. 512; 49 Am.St.Rep. 790.

An invitation may be implied by a dedication, or may arise from known customary use, and it may be inferred from conduct, if notorious or actually known to the owner or his authorized representative, or from any state of facts upon which it naturally and necessarily arises. Glaser v Rothschild, 221 Mo. 180, 120 S.W. 1, 22 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1045, 1047, 17 Ann.Cas. 576; Drennan v. Grady, 167 Mass. 415, 45 N.E. 741; Lawrence v. Kaul Lumber Co., 171 Ala. 300, 55 So. 111, 113. Such an invitation may cover the right as an invitee to be protected by the ordinary care of the owner, not only upon such portions of the premises as may be necessary for mere ingress and egress, but upon those parts which are necessary or incidental to the mutual business or purposes of the invitation. Cen. of Ga. Ry Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ga. 600, 606, 58 S.E. 154; Glaser v. Rothschild, supra, 221 Mo. 180, 120 S.W. 1, 22 L.R.A (N. S.) 1048, 1050, 17 Ann.Cas. 576; Ryerson v Bathgate, 67 N. J. Law, 337, 51 A. 708, 57 L.R.A. 307. But the invitee may not wander at will, without further invitation, to out of the way or dangerous places on the premises, or use parts thereof for purposes wholly disconnected from and in no way pertaining to the business in hand or the objects of the invitation; and, if so injured, the liability of the owner is no greater than to a mere licensee. Seward v. Draper, 112 Ga. 673, 675, 37 S.E. 978; Knowles v. Cen. of Ga. Ry. Co., 118 Ga. 795, 45 S.E. 605; Glaser v. Rothschild, supra, 221 Mo. 180, 120 S.W. 1, 22 L.R.A. (N. S.) 1048; Parker v. Portland Cement Co., 69 Me. 173, 31 Am.Rep. 262, 265; Pierce v. Whitcomb, 48 Vt. 127, 21 Am.Rep. 120. Thus, under the principle just stated, while it is true that "one who hauls his cotton to be ginned at a public ginnery is not a mere licensee, and may recover for damages when injured on the premises by the owner's negligence, even though they are not willfully and recklessly inflicted" (Horton v. Harvey, 119 Ga. 219, 46 S.E. 70; Atlanta Cotton Seed Oil Mills v. Coffey, 80 Ga. 145, 148, 4 S.E. 759, 12 Am.St.Rep. 244), the defendant here could not ordinarily be held liable for the alleged fatal injury to the deceased, sustained while in the boiler room, since his presence there would not ordinarily be taken as covered by the implied invitation of the ginnery to customers to transact its usual business; but, in view of the allegations of the amended petition expressly alleging that such part of the ginnery was, by protracted custom and usage, known to the defendant, thus used by the deceased and other customers as a protection from the weather while waiting their turn in the transaction of regular business, it cannot be held as a matter of law that the...