Doyle v. Pacific Electric Railway Co.

CONREY, J.

This appeal comes before the court upon hearing granted after decision by the District Court of Appeal, where the judgment was reversed. From the opinion of the District Conrt we quote as follows:

“Plaintiff, a minor, brought suit by his guardian

ad litem

to recover damages for injuries suffered when he fell through a skylight in the roof of a ballroom and public dance hall at Redondo Beach, owned and operated by defendant Pacific Electric Railway and under the supervision of defendant Henry C. Froude. At the time of the accident plaintiff was thirteen years and eight months of age, a junior high school pupil. The dance hall was open to the public generally and plaintiff was a spectator in the balcony. In one corner of the balcony a ladder, nailed to the wall, led to an opening in the ceiling, whence a three-plank ‘cat-walk’ traversed the attic over the joists to a skylight through which it was customary to shower balloons upon dancers below. No signs warned the public to keep out of the attic, no lock was upon the door leading thereto, and the cat-walk and skylight were unprotected by railing, although the interior of the attic was lighted by electricity. Without invitation from anyone plaintiff climbed the ladder and, observing in the distance em

[552]

ployees of defendants inflating balloons, walked down the cat-walk in their direction to the skylight, which at the time was covered with canvas and was several inches lower than the walk. Stepping upon the canvas-covered skylight, he crashed through to the dance floor some twenty feet below and was painfully injured.

“At the conclusion of plaintiff’s case the court, on defendants’ motion, directed the jury to return a verdict against plaintiff and for defendants. From the judgment entered pursuant to such directed verdict plaintiff appeals.”

■ It is a general rule that the owner of property owes no duty to' mere trespassers to keep the property in safe condition. To this rule the law has declared an exception, in this, that where an attractive contrivance is maintained with the knowledge of the owner, alluring to children but inherently dangerous to them, this constitutes neglect out of which liability will arise for injuries resulting from such neglect. It is want of ordinary care to maintain such premises, and the question as to whether the device complained of eon-, stitutes a trap dangerous to children is a question of fact ordinarily to be determined by the jury.