Opinion
6 Div. 561.
December 6, 1934.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; C. B. Smith, Judge.
Jim Gibson, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Count A and B state a good cause of action. Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl, 183 Ala. 429, 63 So. 196; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Crocker, 131 Ala. 584, 31 So. 561; Alabama By-Products Corporation v. Cosby, 217 Ala. 144, 115 So. 31; Williams v. Bolding, 220 Ala. 328, 124 So. 892; Temple v. McComb City, etc., Co., 89 Miss. 1, 42 So. 874, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 449, 119 Am. St. Rep. 698, 10 Ann. Cas. 924; Cooper v North Coast Power Co., 117 Or. 652, 244 P. 665; Graves v. Interstate Power Co., 189 Iowa, 227, 178 N.W. 376; Ft. Wayne, etc., Co. v. Stark, 74 Ind. App. 669, 127 N.E. 460; Clark v. Pacific G. E. Co., 118 Cal.App. 344, 5 P.(2d) 58; Robertson v. Rockland L. P. Co., 187 App. Div. 720, 176 N.Y. S. 281; McKiddy v. Des Moines E. Co., 202 Iowa, 225, 206 N.W. 815; Stedwell v. Chicago, 297 Ill. 486, 130 N.E. 729, 17 A.L.R. 829; Texas-Louisiana P. Co. v. Bihl (Tex.Civ.App.) 43 S.W.(2d) 294; Burns v. Chicago, 248 Ill. App.? 204; Howard v. Rockford, 270 Ill. App. 155; White v. Boydston Snyder, 209 Ill. App. 422; Znidersich v. Minn. Utilities Co., 155 Minn. 293, 193 N.W. 449; Pierce v. United G. E. Co., 161 Cal. 176, 118 P. 700; Osborn v. A., T. S. F. R. Co., 86 Kan. 440, 121 P. 364; Drew v. Lett, 95 Ind. App. 89, 182 N.E. 547.
White E. Gibson, White E. Gibson, Jr., and Don M. Gibson, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
To render a landowner responsible for the mere condition of his property, in absence of an affirmative act calculated to inflict injury, invitation to the person injured must be implied from conduct amounting to more than sufferance, permission, or passive acquiescence in repeated trespasses. Cox v. Ala. Water Co., 216 Ala. 35, 112 So. 352, 53 A.L.R. 1336; Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Carter, 214 Ala. 252, 254, 107 So. 218. The fact that children habitually congregate and play upon premises and travel a path near a place at which it is possible to suffer injury, with knowledge of the owner of the premises, does not constitute implied invitation on the part of the owner. Ellison v. Ala. Marble Co., 223 Ala. 371, 136 So. 787; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Godfrey, 156 Ala. 202, 219, 47 So. 185, 130 Am. St. Rep. 76; Scoggins v. A. G. P. Cement Co., 179 Ala. 213, 222, 60 So. 175; Louisville N. R. Co. v. Sides, 129 Ala. 399, 29 So. 798. The attractive nuisance doctrine is founded on the landowner's superior knowledge of the peril from which the duty arises to use such care as the circumstances of the particular case may require to protect others from injury, and is limited in application to latent dangers, and, where the injury results from perils of obvious and patent character, it is not applicable. Williams v. Bolding, 220 Ala. 328, 124 So. 892; Ford v. Planters' C. O. Co., 220 Ala. 669, 126 So. 866; Cobb v. Lowe Mfg. Co., 227 Ala. 456, 150 So. 687. A child, as well as an adult, may be a trespasser or a mere licensee. Ford v. Planters' C. O. Co., supra; Southern R. Co. v. Forrister, 158 Ala. 477, 48 So. 69; Alabama G. S. R. Co. v. Moorer, 116 Ala. 642, 22 So. 900; United Zinc Chemical Co. v. Britt, 258 U.S. 268, 42 S.Ct. 299, 66 L.Ed. 615, 36 A.L.R. 28.
The trial court sustained demurrers to counts A and B; the plaintiff took a nonsuit and appealed.
It is insisted by appellant that his pleadings — as those of an invitee — were within the rule of Williams et al. v. Bolding, 220 Ala. 328, 124 So. 892; Alabama By-Products Corporation v. Cosby, 217 Ala. 144, 115 So. 31, 34; Gandy v. Copeland, 204 Ala. 366, 86 So. 3; Thompson v. Alexander City Cotton Mills Co., 190 Ala. 184, 67 So. 407, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 721; Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl, 183 Ala. 429, 63 So. 196; Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. Crocker, 131 Ala. 584, 585, 31 So. 561.
The counts are within the rule as to an invitee and the general duty of the landowner to third persons, and especially children of tender age invited upon the premises and "known to be exposed to dangerous artificial agencies" thereupon (Alabama By-Products Corporation v. Cosby, supra); and likewise within the rule that an invitation may be implied from the nature of the place, or instrumentality, its use and alluring qualities calculated to attract children of immature judgment and lack of appreciation of the danger. It will be noted that these counts follow the cases of Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl, and Alabama By-Products Corporation v. Cosby, supra.
Count B was likewise supported by the cases of this court of Clover Creamery Co. v. Diehl, 183 Ala. 429, 63 So. 196, Alabama By-Products Corporation v. Cosby, 217 Ala. 144, 115 So. 31, and Gandy v. Copeland, 204 Ala. 366, 86 So. 3. The averments of this count were to the effect that plaintiff was an invitee within the rule of the cases of Williams et al. v. Bolding, supra, and Stephens v. Walker, 217 Ala. 466, 117 So. 22, and were otherwise sufficient to propound the inquiry of fact as to whether the mechanical contrivance in question was an attractive nuisance.
There was error in sustaining demurrers to counts A and B.
Reversed and remanded.
ANDERSON, C. J., and BROWN and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.