Source: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/156/156mass426.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:29:05+00:00

Document:
Present: Field, C. J., Holmes, Knowlton, Lathrop, & Barker, JJ.
Personal Injuries -- Owner of Building -- Licensee.
A woman who goes to a building for her own convenience, to inquire about a matter which concerns herself alone, and not to transact with any occupant of the building any kind of business in which he is engaged, or in the transaction of which the building is used or designed to be used, is a mere licensee, and cannot recover from the owner of the building for injuries received by striking her head upon a projecting sign placed on a post at the corner of the landing, even if it is assumed that it was the duty of the owner to keep the entrance, stairway, and halls of the building reasonably safe for persons using them on an invitation, express or implied, that he negligently permitted them to be unsafe, and that his negligence caused the injury to the plaintiff, and that she was in the exercise of due care.
TORT, for personal injuries occasioned to the plaintiff by striking her head upon a projecting sign placed against a post at the outside corner of the landing of the defendant's building.
Trial in the Superior Court, before Blodgett, J., who directed a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiff alleged exceptions. The facts appear in the opinion.
C. W. Bartlett & E. R. Anderson, for the plaintiff.
J. D. Ball, for the defendant.
KNOWLTON, J. If we assume that it was the duty of the defendant to keep the entrance, stairway, and halls of his building reasonably safe for persons using them on an invitation express or implied, and if we further assume that he negligently permitted them to be unsafe, and that his negligence caused the injury to the plaintiff, and that she was in the exercise of due care, -- some of which propositions are at least questionable, -- we come to the inquiry whether the plaintiff was a mere licensee in the building, or was there by the defendant's implied invitation.
convenience she went there to inquire about a matter which concerned herself alone.
It has often been held that the owner of land or a building, who has it in charge, is bound to be careful and diligent in keeping it safe for those who come there by his invitation, express or implied, but that he owes no such duty to those who come there for their own convenience, or as mere licensees. Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport Railroad, 10 Allen 368 . Metcalfe v. Cunard Steamship Co. 147 Mass. 66 . Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513 . One who puts a building or a part of a building to use in a business, and fits it up so as to show the use to which it is adapted, impliedly invites all persons to come there whose coming is naturally incident to the prosecution of the business. If the place is open, and there is nothing to indicate that strangers are not wanted, he impliedly permits and licenses persons to come there for their own convenience, or to gratify their curiosity. The mere fact that premises are fitted conveniently for use by the owner or his tenants, and by those who come to transact such business as is carried on there, does not constitute an implied invitation to strangers to come and use the place for purposes of their own. To such persons it gives no more than an implied license to come for any proper purpose.
S. C. L. R. 6 Ex. 123. White v. France, 2 C. P. D. 308. Burchell v. Hickisson, 50 L. J. Q. B. 101.
times, and for all persons who were lawfully using the premises, and using due care, so far as they ought to have reasonably anticipated such use as involved in and necessarily arising out of the purposes and business for which said rooms were leased.'" In Learoyd v. Godfrey, 138 Mass. 315 , 323, the plaintiff, a police officer, was expressly invited to the premises by a daughter of the occupant to arrest an intoxicated person who was making disturbance in the house. In Curtis v. Kiley, 153 Mass. 123 , no question was considered or clearly raised about the invitation to the plaintiff. In Davis v. Central Congregational Society, 129 Mass. 367 , the plaintiff went to the defendant's church under an express invitation authorized by the defendant, and the object of her visit was among those contemplated by the defendant when the building was erected. The language used in the cases in this Commonwealth and in other States indicates that the rule in regard to the extent of the invitation implied from the preparation of property for use in business is the same here as laid down in the cases above cited from the courts of New York and of England. Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport Railroad, 10 Allen 368 . Elliott v. Pray, 10 Allen 378 . Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel Co. 99 Mass. 216 . Metcalfe v. Cunard Steamship Co. 147 Mass. 66 . Heinlein v. Boston & Providence Railroad, 147 Mass. 136 . Reardon v. Thompson, 149 Mass. 267 . Gordon v. Cummings, 152 Mass. 513 . Curtis v. Kiley, 153 Mass. 123 . Stevens v. Nichols, 155 Mass. 472 . Campbell v. Portland Sugar Co. 62 Maine, 552. Parker v. Portland Publishing Co. 69 Maine, 173.
visits a building for a purpose not connected with the use for which the building was fitted, or to which it is put, is impliedly invited to come there.
There is a class of cases to which Sweeny v. Old Colony & Newport Railroad, 10 Allen 368 , and Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578 , belong, which stand on a ground peculiar to themselves. They are where the defendant by his conduct has induced the public to use a way in the belief that it is a street or public way which all have a right to use, and where they suppose they will be safe. The inducement, or implied invitation, in these cases, is not to come to a place of business fitted up by the defendant for traffic, to which those only are invited who will come to do business with the occupant, nor is it to come by permission, or favor, or license, but it is to come as one of the public and enjoy a public right, in the enjoyment of which one may expect to be protected. The liability in such a case should be coextensive with the inducement or implied invitation.
Decisions of the same kind have been made in New York and New Jersey which are clearly distinguishable -- and which have been distinguished on perhaps not very satisfactory grounds -- from implied invitations growing out of the preparation of one's place of business for use by his patrons. Barry v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad, 92 N. Y. 289. Vanderbeck v. Hendry, 5 Vroom, 467, 471.
On the facts of the case before us, we are of opinion that the plaintiff was a mere licensee in the defendant's building, and that the rulings at the trial were correct.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.