[DOWNLOAD] "Nichols v. Consolidated Dairies" by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Nichols v. Consolidated Dairies
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 16, 1952
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 61 KB
Description
1. Negligence ? Attractive nuisance. The attractive nuisance doctrine is recognized in Montana. 2. Negligence ? Liability of landowner. Possessor of land is subject to liability for bodily harm to young children trespassing thereon caused by structure or other artificial condition which he maintains upon his land, if place where condition is maintained is one which possessor knows or should have known that such children are likely to trespass upon, and condition is one which possessor knows or should know involves unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and children, because of their youth, do not discover condition or realize risk involved, and utility to possessor of maintaining condition is slight as compared to risk to young children as result thereof. - Page 461 3. Negligence ? Complaint sufficient under attractive nuisance doctrine. Complaint which alleged that boy of tender years was injured by counterweight operated passenger elevator inside defendants grain elevator, and that elevator was dangerous and unsafe instrumentality, and that defendant knew that premises were peculiarly attractive to children of tender years, and that defendant should have known from exercise of reasonable care that children were on premises and about elevator, and that defendant permitted children to play thereon and failed to properly secure elevator to preclude operation by children, and that injury resulted to such child as result thereof, sufficiently stated case within attractive nuisance doctrine. 4. Negligence ? Injuring instrumentality need not be the attraction. It is not necessary that instrumentality be the one that attracted them into building, but it is sufficient if defendant knew or should have known that children would be attracted to and likely to come into contact with such instrumentality. 5. Negligence ? Counterweight held attractive nuisance. Maintenance of counterweight operated passenger elevator in grain elevator was maintenance of instrumentality within meaning of attractive nuisance doctrine. 6. Negligence ? Alleging knowledge on part of owner. Allegation that defendant operator of grain elevator knew or should have known that dangerous condition of passenger elevator within grain elevator existed, that children were attracted to elevator and were playing in and around the premises, and that injury resulted to child of tender years as result, was sufficient allegation of negligence within attractive nuisance doctrine. 7. Negligence ? Reasonable care to invitees. Owner of premises is obliged to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from injury. 8. Negligence ? Effect of allegation in complaint. Count of complaint for personal injuries sustained by 12-year-old boy on elevator premises on theory that boy was on premises at invitation of employee in charge of grain elevator for mutual benefit of employee and defendant, which alleged that employee saw boy near passenger elevator and failed to warn him of its danger or take steps to prevent him from stepping thereon in absence of supporting facts as to purpose boy was serving on premises or benefit to defendant, was merely a statement that boy was licensee to whom sole duty owed was to refrain from acts of wilful and wanton negligence. 9. Negligence ? Duty to licensee. The duty owed to a licensee is to refrain from acts of wilful and wanton negligence.