Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/375

 PART IV.] LIABILITY FOR TORTS OF AGENTS. [§ 371. for injuries received by him, unless be sbows it to bave been guilty of negligence so gross as to amount to wantonness. 1 A Pennsylvania decision, Baltimore and Obio R. R.. Co. v. Scbwindling, 2 carries to an extreme the doctrine tbat a cor- poration is not liable for the negligence of its employes wbicb causes injury to trespassers. Tbe court beld tbat the company owed no duty to the plaintiff, a child of five years, who was upon the platform of a railroad station when injured, but not as a passenger, nor upon any business connected with the com- pany ; and accordingly that the company was not liable for injuries incurred by him through negligence imputable to it. Tbe court may have overlooked a principle which seems not inapplicable to this case, and which might have altered the de- cision bad it been applied. It is this : If a railroad company acquiesces in the custom of the public in using or crossing its stations or track at certain places, it will be held by its acqui- escence or quasi-invitation to have held the premises out as reasonably safe ; and will accordingly be liable to a person for injuries caused b} r their unsafe condition, if he himself was guilty of no contributory negligence. 3 A railroad company has a right to exclude the general public from its stations, 4 ex- cept such persons as offer themselves as passengers or shippers ; but if it acquiesces — as appears to have been the case in Balti- more and Ohio R. R. Co. v. Schwindling — in the use of its sta- tions by the general public, it should keep them safe. 5 1 Mason v. Missouri Pac. R'y Co., 27 Kans. 83. See Cauley v. Pitts- burgh, C. and St. L. R'y Co., 95 Pa. St. 398; Omaha, etc., R. R. Co. v. Martin, 14 Neb. 295; Highland Ave., etc., R. R. Co. v. Robbins, 124 Ala. 113. 2 101 Pa. St. 258. 8 Bennett v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 577; Barry v. New York Cent, and H. R. R. R. Co., 92 N. Y. 289. See Brown v. Hannibal, etc., R. R. Co., 50 Mo. 461; Murphy u. C. R. I. and P. R. R. Co., 38 Iowa, 539; Fitts v. Cream City R. R. Co., 59 Wis. 323; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Dick, 91 Ky. 434; Calderson v. Nav. Co., 38 Or. 343. Compare Murphy v. Boston & A. R. R. Co., 133 Mass. 121; Sweeny v. Old Colony, etc., R. R. Co., 10 Allen (Mass.), 368; Johnson v. Boston, etc., R. R. Co., 125 Mass. 75; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 71 111. 500. Adverse to the statement in the text is Sutton v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 66 N. Y. 243. 4 Commonwealth v. Power, 7 Met. (Mass.) 596. See Summit v. State, 8 Lea (Tenn.), 413. 5 Tobin v. Portland, etc., R. R. Co., 59 Me. 183; Nagel v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 75 Mo. 653; Evansich v. G. C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 37 Tex. 123; S. C, 61 Tex. 3; Keffeu. Milwaukee and St. 355