The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-03-23
RAILWAY WINS
TRESPASS CASE
Supreme Court Holds That Boy
Injured BY Turn-Table Can
1 not Recover s: Damages.
"suFFIcIENcY OF NOTICE.
"sUFFIcIENcY OF NOTICE.
Trustee Must Act Towards Both
Debtor and Creditor With
Fairness.

The Supreme .court-of Appeals yester.
day handed down but three opinions, all
of ttetn,I however, 81 special interest
In addition to the opinions 4 and an.
nouncement Of petitions for appeaI a re-
hearing was refused In the case of Red
wood ct ais. VS.. Rogers ct ais, from the
Hastings Court Of TIE city of Peters
burg. as
THIS is one of the famous Fisher Rail-.
way Cases" and 1t is said to be the
only one which Fisher has won In the
Supreme Court OF Appeals. The case
was argued by Messrs. Hill Carter and
Alexander Hamilton. for the Fisher in
terests. and by Mr.. H. "a. Anderson. rem
resenting the Goulds.
Trespass on Railways.
/ In Walkers administrator VS.. Potomac
Fredericksburg and Piedmont Railroad
Company, Judge Buchanan delivered the
opinion of the court. affirming the judg-
fment of the Circuit Court of Orange coun-
8ty This is the first expression of the
I Virginia court upon the duty of land
owners. railroad companies in particular.
to keep their premises in such a condition
that children going thereupon, whether
as trespassers or bare licensees. will not
E be injured.
IN this case the boy, little over
twelve years DID,. together with two
other boys Of about the same age, was
playing at the turn-table of the defen-
adant company, which was located on Its
premises some distance, from the publlc
road, and short distance from its sta
ton at Orange Courthouse. The boys
were pushing the turnrtable AROUND the
track preparing to Jump on 1t, and Just
as Walker jumped one OF his feet was
caught and mashed. causing lockjaw,'
from the effects Of which he died.
The question In the case was whether,
or not the railroad company was guilty
OF negligence in leaving the turn table in
the place where it was.a on It's own prem-3
iises. unfenced and unfastened.
The general rule Is said to be that 4
land owner does not owe to a trespasseri
S(and the same Is true OF a. bare licensee)5
the duty of having his land in a safe
condition for a trespasser to enter upon,
and the. latter has ordinarily no remedy,
for harm happening to- him from the ma
fture OF the property upon which he In
strudes: that he takes upon himself the
risks of the condition of the land, and to
recover for an injury happening to him
must show that 1t was wantonly inflicted,
sor that the owner or occupant. being
present. could have prevented the Injury
BY the exercise OF ordinary care afteridis-
covering tho danger. It was contended,i
however, by the plaintiff that under the
circumstances of this case this rule Is
not applicable to chtldren; relying upon
the decision of the United States court In
Sioux City Railroad Company VS.. Stout,
and other cases following 1t.
The opinion says that $while these de-
clsions. known as the .:Turntable Cases.
sustain the contention of the plaintiff,
there Is a n ren,a rka BILE conflict of au-
thority upon the subject. many OF the
decisions OF the appellate courts OF the
various States sustaining the doctrine of
the turn-table cases in Its hroadest sense.
& while many utterly repudiate 1t. and
others practically limit 1T tograilroad turn.
table cases It Is said that as this Is the
first casa ever before the Virginia court
involving this precise question, the court
IS at liberty to follow that line OF de-
fcisions which, In It's Judgment, is more
nearly In accord with settled principles
of law and is sustained by tho better red
son. n n Ssy5 tyls ,,et3s Is 33J3
H 5I In order for the plaintiff TO recover liz
this case. II Is declared, It must appear
that the defendant s company owed
Wal kerr some duty (which 1t failed to dis
scharge for where there Is no duty there
can he No me- 81 lgence; and The court hollis
tina THE rifle OF the common law, which
imposes no duty upon5ia land owner to
use care to keep hls Promises In such
Scondlt ton hat trespassers and bare
llicenses going there0ni may not he In.
@jpred, lss applica bile To hildren as: well ,s
to adult IS, Y lie court ne fuses to- sustain
tho contention hat there was q nst rus,
observation-disclosures to come Suponi the SnGenlisns