Although the plaintiff here sought to recover in one count on the theory that he was both an implied invitee and
While the authorities are not uniform, their overwhelming weight is to the effect that an express invitation, like one implied, does not give to the recipient the legal status of an invitee, unless his visit is in some way connected with the business in which the occupant is engaged. The basis of the rule appears to be that an occupant of real estate ordinarily has the right and privilege of using it as he sees fit, without responsibility or liability, except from hidden pitfalls, to a visitor entering thereon merely for his own interest, curiosity, or pleasure, but the visitor must take the premises subject to any ordinary accompanying risks, the same as the occupant himself. Greenfield v. Miller,
It is true that section 105-401 of the Code of 1933, contains the broad language that, “’where the owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries occasioned by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.” But the words “for any lawful purpose” and other language of our statute, “by express or implied invitation,” have been used in cases, such as Bennett v. Louisville &c. R. Co.,
Judgment affirmed.