Cristiano v. Millers

The record does not disclose what disposition was made of defendants’ motion for a nonsuit, and it is not clear that any exception was taken to any ruling. Brief of defendants’ counsel states that the court granted a nonsuit, and the parties have appeared in court, and argued the motion upon that supposition, without objection. We conclude, therefore, to entertain the motion. The record discloses that plaintiff, an infant between eight and nine years of age, in company with his sister, visited defendants’ brewery for the purpose of obtaining a load of “brewery slops.” The usual place of securing the load was at a box situated in the brewery yard adjoining the structure. Near the box was a passageway or tunnel under the brewery building, which was used by the defendants and their servants in prosecuting the business. It was not necessary, in order to obtain the load, to enter the tunnel, and it had never been used in connection therewith. Within the tunnel, situated about twenty-five feet from the enterance, was a hole connected with a subterranean passage, through which was discharged hot water used in the brewery. This hole was covered with an iron grating. On the day in question the sister drove first to the office of the brewery, made inquiry for slops, and was informed that there were none that day.. Notwithstanding this information, she drove to the rear of the brewery, where the slop box was situated, made inquiry there, and was again informed that there were none. At this time plaintiff alighted from the wagon, to answer a call of nature, and entered the tunnel, passed along to the grating, and stepped upon, it. It tipped and let him in; and his lower limbs were severely scalded. We are unable to find, upon these facts, any ground upon which to charge defendants with liability. No permission was given by defendants to use the passageway. It

The exceptions should be overruled, and the motion denied.