Court Opinion

ID: 9550265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:33:08.425575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:21:17.730215
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE ADAIR:
(concurring in the result).
I do not agree with all that is said in the majority opinion, but concur in the result. Tested by the rules governing pleadings, the allegations of both the first and second causes of action are sufficient as against defendant’s general demurrer.
The owner of an ordinary type of grain elevator such as is common to hamlets and railroad sidings throughout this state is privileged to conduct his business on his own premises with *467such machinery, operated in such manner as may be necessary and convenient to make his business successful. This court so held in Nixon v. Montana, Wyoming & S. W. Ry. Co., 50 Mont. 95, 102, 145 Pac. 8, 10, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 299, wherein it said that “if it does not appear but that the machinery or the use thereof was proper, necessary, and convenient, and that it was especially and unusually attractive to children, and that its unusual attractiveness to children was known, or should have been known, to the owner, no cause of action under the turntable doctrine is stated.”
The decisions having to do with passenger elevators maintained and operated for the accommodation of tenants and guests in office buildings, hotels and apartment houses must not be confused with cases involving the duties and responsibilities of the operators of small grain elevators wherein is maintained a more or less crude and simple manually operated man lift such as was involved in the case of Brandenberg v. Equity Co-op. Exchange, 160 Minn. 162, 199 N. W. 570. Compare Silver King Coalition Mines Co. v. Lindseth, 8 Cir., 19 F. (2d) 221; Crawford v. Rice, 5 Cir., 36 F. (2d) 199; Drew v. Lett, 95 Ind. App. 89, 182 N. E. 547.