Court Opinion

ID: 9833134
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:29:05.399238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:00.035005
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[5] Counsel for appellee insist in their motion for a rehearing that, inasmuch as the evidence conclusively shows that the pecans *838furnished the chief attraction which induced children to visit that inelosure, there should be no liability attached to the conduct of the appellee in placing other objects thereon which did not furnish any attraction for children to resort to that place. The argument is based upon a misconception of what we think is the underlying principle upon which the liability of the appellee in this case must rest. ' It is true that the evidence does show that up to the time of the appellant’s first visit to that place the pecans were the only attraction, and that on that occasion he went inside only in response to an invitation from Oowen’s boy. But it is also true that large numbers of children did visit that grove in search of pecans, and did so without any permission from any one. This created a condition which even the owner of the premises could not wholly ignore in casting away or depositing thereon dangerous objects possessing special or unusual attractions to such children. Certainly the right to so incumber the premises with such dangerous and attractive objects would be still less ayailable to one who had no legal right to so use such premises. The proof in this case does show that, on the occasion when those explosives were obtained and carried away by the appellant and his companions, they were attracted to that place by these objects alone. If the conduct of the appellee in depositing them in that particular place should not here be held as tantamount to an implied invitation to enter the inclosure, it must be due to the fact that appellee had no authority to extend such an invitation. It did, however, extend an invitation, in so far as one may be implied from casting away such toys and playthings, to all children who might be upon those premises from any motive or purpose. There can be no hard and fast rule laid down by the courts for determining common-law liability resulting from personal negligence. Each case must be determined by its own facts. The question presented is: Would a person of ordinary prudence have deposited such objects at such a place under the circumstances detailed by the evidence in this case? We adhere to the holding that the evidence presented a question which1 the court should have submitted to the jury, and the motion is overruled.