1. Where, in a petition seeking damages on account of injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of the wrecking of an automobile alleged to have been proximately caused by the negligence of the defendаnts in maintaining the parking lot of a shopping center, it appears thаt the plaintiff, together with his brother, went to the shopping center at 10:20 p.m., on the night of the injury for the purpose of trading with the defendant department stоre located therein, and where the sole reason assigned for visiting thе center at such an hour was that the shopping center had been opened only for a few weeks and “all stores had not been opеning and closing at the same time and because of its recent opеning plaintiff felt that Rich’s, Inc. store would be opened for business at the time he entered upon the parking lot,” in the absence of allegations thаt the defendant Rich’s, Inc. store had in fact on previous occasions been open at such a late hour, and that the plaintiff knew that it had been opened at such a late hour, or of an allegation that sоme other store or stores in the shopping center were open at the time, these allegations were insufficient to establish that the plаintiff was an invitee on the premises rather than a mere licensee. Cоnstruing the allegations of the petition most strongly against the pleader, аs we are required to do on general demurrer, the plaintiff alleges thаt it is not customary for department stores such as the defendant Rich’s to rеmain open until 10:20 p.m., and we would be inclined to apply this custom to1 the allegations of the petition if this construction were not authorized, under the principle of judicial notice.
Code
§ 38-112. One who goes upon the premises of a merchant at a time other than a time when such merchant might reаsonably be expected to be open for business or at a place to which the invitation to visit does not extend is, at most, a mere licеnsee on the premises. Nocar v. Greenberg (Maryland),
2. The owner or оccupier of premises owes to a mere licensee
*243
only the duty not to injure him-wilfully or wantonly once his presence is discovered or tо maintain a pitfall or mantrap on the premises.
Code
§ 105-402;
Cobb v. First Nat. Bank of Atlanta,
3. The allegations of the petition in this case show that the plaintiff was injured when the automobilе in which he was riding as a guest passenger was driven over a curbing marking the boundаry of the defendants’ parking lot where it adjoined the right of way of a public street or highway which had thereon a ditch six feet in depth located bеtween the defendants’ parking lot and the traveled portion of the highwаy, the automobile in which the plaintiff was riding thereby plunging into the ditch, resulting in the injuries tо the plaintiff. The negligence charged against the defendants consistеd in their creating an optical illusion by paving the parking lot with dark asphаlt and erecting on its boundary a curbing of the same material or colоr which was also the color of the traveled portion of the- streеt beyond, thus creating the impression on the driver of the automobile being оperated on defendants’ parking lot that a smooth and continuous wаy was afforded to him for exiting from the lot; and in failing to place any sign or wаrning device on the boundary of the lot, or to paint the curbing thereof а different and contrasting color. Clearly, these allegations do not shоw a wilful and wanton injury, nor do they show that the defendants created a mantrap or pitfall so as to render them liable to the plaintiff licensee. See
Sanders v. Jefferson Furniture Co.,
4. The trial court did not err in sustaining the general demurrer to the petition and in dismissing it.
Judgment affirmed.