Judgment of the Court
J.:-This appeal was dismissed on the hearing without calling upon counsel for the respondents but we intimated that we must not be taken as approving the grounds upon which the Court below proceeded.
Assuming without deciding that Mr. Kennedy is right in his contention that the appellant was an invitee upon the premises of the respondents, and that they were under the duty toward him which that relationship cast upon them, it was incumbent upon the appellant to use reasonable care for his own safety.
On the alarm being given, the appellant, believing that a raid by the police was in progress, became excited, as did the other inmates, and in order to avoid arrest ran to the screen door which, according to the finding below, with which we agree, was fastened by a hook. The appellant unhooked the door, shoved it open and stepped out, apparently without looking, on the assumption that the door led to a stairway on the outside of the building of which the premises here in question form a part. There was a stairway on the outside of the building which the appellant had casually observed previously, but it did not lead to the door in question nor to any other door on that side of the building but to the rear of the upper part of the building on quite a different level. The appellant had never used the stairway in question and even if, as found by the learned trial judge, he was justified in believing that the doorway led to the stairway, we think that this action must fail. We do not think that the duty on the part of the respondents toward the appellant even as invitee can be extended to include responsibility in the circumstances surrounding the manner in which the appellant used the premises in making his exit. The appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs.