While we grant the clear right of the appellees to revoke the license, we assert as emphatically that they must do so in a manner not calculated under ordinary circumstances to inflict injury unnecessarily. Although a licensee acquires no interest, as the term is usually employed, nor property right in the real estate over which he is allowed to travel, he yet has the right not to be wilfully or even recklessly injured by the acts of the owner. It cannot be said truthfully that the owner does not owe some duty to a licensee.
At the time of the stretching of the wire the appellees must have known that the public would continue to travel over this lot until in some way prevented from doing so. They must have known further that a single strand of wire, without posts at the roadside, or other means calculated to attract the attention of passers-by, could not be seen in the dark, and was a dangerous obstruction, liable to injure those coming in contact with it. They must, therefore, have anticipated just such results as the one that happened to the appellant. It was their clear duty, consequently, in case they desired to make use of the dangerous wire, to shut out the public from going over their lot, to give some warning by which the presence of the wire might be detected. Had they used an ordinary fence, one constructed out of material not necessarily dangerous to life and limb even if encountered in the dark, the case might be otherwise, and notice might not have been necessary. But the stretching of the barbed wire, without notice, under the circumstances was, we think, a plain violation of duty.
The case made by the evidence is one of more than mere passive negligence. In that class of cases it is well enough settled that there is no liability to a mere licensee. Thus where the owner of premises inadvertently leaves unguarded a pit, hatchway, trap-door, cistern, or other dangerous opening, and one who is present merely by permission and not by invitation, express or implied, falls into the opening and is injured, he cannot recover, as, in such case, he enjoys the license subject to the risks. Thiele v. McManus, 3 Ind. App. 132. But while an owner may not be liable to one who is thus injured by mere inattention and neglect of the owner, there could be no doubt of his liability if it were shown that the obstruction was placed there purposely to keep the licensee from entering the premises, or for the very purpose of inflicting injury if an attempt be made to cross. As well might an owner give permission to his neighbor to travel over his field and then set a trap to hurt him.
Where the owner of ground digs a pit or erects other dangerous obstructions at a place where it is probable that persons or animals may go and become injured, without using proper care to guard the same, it is well settled in this state that there is a liability, and that the owner must respond in damages for any injury incurred by such negligence. Young v. Harvey, 16 Ind. 314; Graves v. Thomas, 95 Ind. 361; Mayhew v. Burns, 103 Ind. 328; Penso v. McCormick, 125 Ind. 116.
A barbed wire fence is not of itself an unlawful one, and the building of such along a public highway is not necessarily a negligent act; but yet, even in such case as that, there may be circumstances under which a person building such a fence, in a negligent manner, will be held liable for damages caused thereby. Sisk v. Crump, 112 Ind. 504. All these cases proceed upon the assumption that the party whose negligence caused the injury owed the other some duty which he failed to perform, for, after all, negligence is nothing more nor less than the failure to discharge some legal duty or obligation.
Even trespassers have some rights an owner is bound to respect. If a person, without permission, should attempt to cross the field of another, and tramp down his growing grain, it would not be contended, we apprehend, that this gave the owner any right to kill the trespasser, or even to seriously injure him unnecessarily. The use of spring guns, traps, and other devices to catch and injure trespassing persons or animals has been condemned both in this country and in England. Hooker v. Miller, 37 Iowa, 613; Deane v. Clayton, 7 Taunt. 489. If such means may not be employed against trespassers, we do not see upon what principle it can be held that it is proper to use them against one who has a permissive right to go upon the property where they are placed.
While in the case at bar there may be no proof of intentional injury, the facts, we think, bring the case within the principle declared in Young v. Harvey, supra; Graves v. Thomas, supra; Penso v. McCormick, supra; and Sisk v. Crump, supra.
The court should have sustained the motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.[[149]]