Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-04-02
THE BOY WAS KILLED
COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES Ap-
mNIsrRAroR MUST NE pam.
BLAEKENSHlP AGAINST THE c. 40
Judgment of tho Circuit Court of
This city DISQUALIFICATION I'm ,hs
Suit Of the sulphur Mines Company.
A Norfolk Note Case

OF the four cases decided in tho su.
prcme Court OF Appeals yesterday tho
most important TO Richmond people wa.
probably that OF tho Richmond and Man.
chester Railway Company against Moore.
Administrator, the opinion In which was
prepared by Judge George NJ. Harrison
Little Moore an S-ycar-old lad. was KIN.
"a at Forest-Hin Park IN 1898 while wit.
Messing q balloon ascension about to take
place one OF the poles supporting the
la~ge canvas structure fell. striking the
child with fatal results. His administer
Tor entered suit against the company in
The Circuit Court OF Chesterfield county
for $1,000 and upon trial the Jury as
sossel the damages against the company
az $3.50.
From this verdict the company took
an appeal but the Court OF Appeals. by
SIS decision yesterday. affirmed the lower
court. The opinion is very interesting.
and Is as follows:
The defendant. plaintiff in error here.
was a street railway company. running
is cars from the city Of Richmond
through the city Of Manchester. and
about two miles beyond ii. to a place
known as Forest-Hin Park This park
WAS owned by the defendant. was under
SIS control and management. was kept
open TO the public. and was made at
trlctive in various ways TO induce people
io make 70 a pleasure resort. and thereby
fan patronage for the street railway.
The defendant employed and paid one
Peter Blum togo upon their park prem
ss,s on the nth. 18th. and 18th days of
July 1895. and make three balloon ascen-
s.0rs The defendant advertised these
performances I'm the newspapers. by hand
ills. and otherwise. and In this manner
cyteuded TO the public an invitation to
visit its premises and witness the balloon
lsctrslons.
a LARGE CROWD PRESENT.
This invitation drew a large crowd 20
the defendants premises on the evening
az July is. lN9. including many children,
and among them the plaintiffs intestate.
q Little boy years and 6 months old. In
arrangiug for the balloon ascension two
poles. each about 80 feet long. were
placed .n an upright position. 50 feet
anaIt and secured by guy ropes attached
o. stakes driven in the ground. a rope
Wls ron from the top OF one pole 10 the
cop OF the other, and the balloon was
swung 90 this rope until inflated and
ready 90 ascend. when the guy ropes
were released and the poles Were thrown
down. The evidence shows that the
crowd generally knew nothing of the dan
ger they would DE i'm from the falling Of
the poles. and supposed the poles were
..ff - ~
that The grown people as well as the
children had cNWded around the poles
watching the imitation and other prepare
tons Tor the ascension. AS the balloon
Was about ready 20 go mp Blum made
some effort 10 clear % way for the first
pole 20 fall. and a signal was given 10
look out. the people took this 20 mean
that the balloon was about TO 30 up. and
10 created great excitement, stirring
about. and running for better points Of
view. AT this juncture the pole was re-
leased and fen striking the plaintiffs in
testatc ON the head and killing him.
THE LAW WELL SETTLED.
The principles of law upon which the
right of recovery rests i'm a case like
this are well settled. Mr. Cooley In his
work on T0rts. second edition. page us,
says: eft has been stated on preceding
page that one is under no obligation TO
keep his premises in safe condition for
the visits of trespassers. on the other
hand when he expressly or by implica-
ton invites others TO come upon his
premises. whether for business or any
other purpose. it is his duty to be rea-
sonably sure that he is not inviting them
into danger. and TO that end he must
exercise ordinary care and prudence TO
render the premises reasonably safe for
the visit"
In the more recent work Of Boswell
OH Personal Injuries, the -aW is well
stated I'm section 66, as follows: If
person enters upon premises on business
10 be transacted with the owner or occu-
rant thereof. or by the procurement Of
the owner or the occupant; and being
himself in the exercise of due care, is
injured by reason OF the unsafe con-
dition OF the promises or the approaches
thereto such unsafe condition being
known. or such as ought 90 have been
known 10 the owner or occupant. the
latter will be answerable iu damages for
such injuries" And i'm section 20 he
says: "It is apprehended that the re-
rpousibnity of the owner or occupant Of
land or buildings, is the same towards
rtrsons entering his premises, whether
these come upon business to be trans
acted with the owner or occupant, or at
his solicitation. or upon his mere invita-
lion since in any of these cases, the en-
Try IS by his procurement or inducement
and not by his mere acquiescence or
AGAINST his will" These principles are
supported by numerous adjudicatons
Nichols Administrator vs.. ". O. and
w. r. r. Coz Sc Virginia, 90; Davis vs.
Central Congregational Society. 129 Mas
sachusetts. 357; Curtis ". Kiley, 1853 Mas
sachusttts. l23: Powers VS.. Harlow 50
Michigan. 5J7
IT WAS NOT ERROR.
The first assignment Of error is 10 the
action Of the court In Overruling the de-
murrer 10 the amended declaration. This
was not error. The declaration states
good cause of action under the authori-
ties cited. IL contains every requisite
allegation in such a case, and the facts !
which constitute the cause OF action are |
so fully set forth that they can be easily |
understood by the defendant. by the |
Jury in ascertaining the truth OF the ale |
cations. and by the court in giving judg- |
mont. ] Chitty's Pleadings, 2J6: Jones VS.. |
o. D. c. NJ 81 Virginia. 49,
Tho chief ground Of objection TO the |
declaration is that IL does not allege how |
the plaintiffs Intcstate Went 10 the /
park. whether he walked or rode. how ne |
was there. whether as a passenger over |
the defendants railway. AS licensee or
as q trespasser. 1t IS immaterial how