The owner of an office building has been held not to owe tile duty of keeping closed the doors to the elevator wells• in respect •to one who enters the building seeking informa tion about one not a tenant of or employed in it, since he is a mere licensee; Stanwood v. Clancey, 106 Me. 72, 75 Atl. 293; Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426, 31 N. E. 128, 32 Am. St. Rep. 463; as such he goes into the build ing at his own risk and is bound to take the premises as he finds them; Beehler v. Dan iels, 18 R. I. 563, 29 Atl. 6, 27 L. R. A. 512, 49 Am. St. Rep. 790; Faurot v. Grocery Co., 21 Okl. 104, 95 Pac. 463, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 136; Faris v. Hoberg, 134 Ind. 269, 33 N. E. 1028, 39 Am. St. Rep. 261. This rule was applied where a policeman, in the e±ercise of his duty to protect the property of an ex press company from strikers, was killed from falling down an elevator shaft ; Casey . v. Adams, 234 Ill. 350, 84 N. E. 933, 17 L. R. A. (N, S.) 776, 123 Am, St. Rep. 105; and also where a fireman entered a building for the purpose of protecting property therein from fire and was injured while using an elevator in such building ; Gibson v. Leonard, 143 Ill. 182, 32 N. E. 182, 17 L. R. A, 588, 36 Am. St. Rep. 376; and where the wife of the janitor of a building used the elevator for the purpose of showing a tenant therein the. roof ; Billows v. Moors, 162 Mass. 42, 37 N. E. 750.
As to licensees by invitation or affirmative consent, it is held that the owner of an ele vator owes the duty of exercising ordinary care; Muench v. Heinemann, 119 Wis. 441e 96 N. W. 800. Thus a child, who with the knowledge or implied consent of an elevator operator, rides on the top of the car, is held not a trespasser ; Davis' Adm'r v. Co., 127 Ky. 800, 106 S. W. 843, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 402. As to licensees by permission or on mere sufferance, the owner owes no duty ex cept to refrain from acts of actual negli gence; Muench v. Heinemann, 119 Wis. 441, 96 N. W. 800; Faris .v. Hoberg, 134 Ind. 269. 33 N. E. 1028, 39 Am. St. Rep. 261; Amerine v. Porteous, 105 Mich. 347, 63 N. W. 300 ; McCarvell v. Sawyer, 173 Mass. 540, .54 N. E. 259, 73 Am. St. Rep. 318; McManus v. Thing, 194 Mass. 362, 80 N. E. 487 ; Leavitt v. Shoe Co., 69 N. H. 597, 45 Atl. 558. Where one has been forbidden, to use the elevator and sustains an injury, he cannot, recover ; Ferguson v. Truax, 132 Wis. 478, .110 N. W. 395, 111 N. W. 657, 112 N. W. 513, 14 R. A'. (N. S.) 350, 13. Ann. Cas. 1092.
An elevator should have constant care and inspection; Bier v. Mfg. Co., 130 Pa. 446, 18 Atl. 637; McGuigan v. Beatty, 186 Pa. 32p, 40 Atl. 490; that the machinery was oiled once a week and the elevator looked at by a fellow servant does not fulfil the require ment that it should be inspected regularly; Swenson v. R. Co., 78 App. Div. 379, 80 N. Y. Supp. 281; or where it has been inspected two weeks before an accident, and a defect overlooked; Corn Products Refining Co. v.
King, 168 Fed. 892, 94 C. C. A. 304 ; or where an accident was caused by the breaking of a shaft, the defective condition of which might have been discovered by inspection; Rein hardt v. Lard Co., 74 N. J. L. 9, 64 Atl. 990. But one is not liable for an accident to an employe if he regularly employs a competent firm to inspect the elevator; Young v. Stable Co., 193 N. Y. 188, 86 N. E. 15, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 592, 127 Am. St. Rep. 939. In case of a casualty, it is not enough to show that the elevator is one of a kind in ordinary use • McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. andt, 136 Ill. 170, 26 N. E. 588. But the ab sence' of safety appliances is said not to be conclusive evidence of negligence; Shattuck v. Rand, 142 Mass. 83, 7 N. E. 43. An eleva tor is not supposed to be a place of danger, to be approached with great caution ; Zieman v. Mfg. Co., 90 Wis. 497, 63 N. W. 1021 ; but when the door is opened a passenger may enter it without stopping to make a special examination ; Tousey v. Roberts, 114 N. Y. 312, 21 N. E. 399, 11 Am. St. Rep. 655.
See 9 L. R A. 640, note; Mitchell v. Mark er, 62 Fed. 139, 10 C. C. A. 306, 25 L. R. A. 33 ; Webb, Elevators.
The business of handling grain in eleva tors is of such a nature as to subject it to regulations which would be entirely unjusti fiable if applied to a purely private business. Because the business is of a quasi-public na ture, even the owner of a country elevator, who buys for himself alone and is his own grader and weighmaster, may be required to secure a license from the state; State v. W. W. Cargill Co., 77 Minn. 223, 79 N. W. 962; W. W: Cargill Co. v. Minnesota, 180 U. S. 402, 21 Sup. Ct. 423, 45 L. Ed. 619. For the same reason the legislature may make a weighmaster's certificate prima facie evi dence of what is stated. therein; Vega Steam ship Co. v. Elevator Co., 75 Minn. 308, 77 N. W.-973, 43 L. R. A. 843, 74 Am. St. Rep. 484.
As to grain in a grain elevator, see CONFU SION OF GOODS.