delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mаthias was unsuccessful in the trial of his claim against The Denver Union Terminal Company in which he sought to recover damages for injuries to his person and property resulting from alleged negligenсe. Dissatisfied with the findings and judgment of the trial court, he instituted proceedings in error in this court, seeking to have the adverse decision reversed.
The complaint was based upon an express or implied invitation extended to Mathias to come upon the premises of The Denver Union Terminal Company (herein *226 after referred to as “the defendant” or “the depot”); Mathias’ presence upon the premises pursuant to the invitation, and the negligence of the defendant by reason of which Mathias fell through a glass canopy attached to the building of dеfendant, resulting in his injuries. Besides the general issue, defendant filed the affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence.
The defendant, a corporation, owns and opеrates the railway depot in Denver, serving several railroads with trains entering and leaving Denver. For years reporters and photographers for the several news media in Denver had access to the depot for.the purpose of obtaining photographs of celebrities and delegations arriving or departing by train.
Mathias was a photographer for The Dеnver Post, and on April 22, 1953, was assigned by his employer to obtain photographs of members of out-of-state Chambers of Commerce who were expected to reach Denver that dаy. When he arrived at the depot with his equipment, he found a number of these members congregated near one of the exits.
He took some pictures of the group at this place, and decided he would attempt to get some overhead shots. To achieve his objective he ascended to the second floor of the depot and surveyed the situation from а number of windows. Each revealed some physical condition which barred an adequate view.
Having given up the idea of obtaining any overhead views, Mathias was in the act of returning to thе ground floor when he was approached by some employees of the depot who, on learning of his mission, offered to assist him. Thereupon, an air-deflector was removed from a window by one of these employees and a desk was moved near thereto. Mathias was helped by an employee to the top of the desk, from which he stepped upоn the window sill and began to ease his body down to the canopy, beneath which the men whom he desired *227 to photograph were standing; an employee then handed him his camera. Immediately thereafter the glass canopy upon which he intended to stand, gave away and he fell through the same to the sidewalk, sustaining personal injury and property damage.
The canоpy was painted glass supported by ribs of steel, and had the appearance of metal. There were signs spaced on the canopy containing the following warning: “Danger glass roof keep off.” Mathias denied seeing these warning signs. Although not large signs, it is not disputed that had he looked, he could have seen the one nearest the window out of which he descendеd upon the canopy.
At the conclusion of the evidence, briefs were submitted to the trial court, and in due course it found that Mathias was a licensee at the time of the accidеnt and took the premises as he found them; that he stepped upon the canopy in disregard of an evident warning sign, thereby assuming the risk; that the depot was not negligent; and thereupon entеred judgment against Mathias and for the depot.
The application by the trial court of the doctrine of assumption of risk arising from the relationship of property owner and licensеe, as well as that of voluntary assumption of risk, to the facts as disclosed by this record, indicates a misconception of these doctrines.
Mathias entered the depot as an invitеe, and so long as he used the areas of the depot common to passengers and those having an interest in the arrival or departure of passengers, he maintained his status as an invitee.
Union Depot, etc. Co. v. Londoner,
*228
In that portion of the premises his status was that of an implied invitee. His presence there was for the purpose of giving publicity to the arrival оf passengers, a matter in which the depot had an interest. “It is well settled there that to come under an implied invitation, as distinguished from a mere license, the visitor must come for a purpоse connected with the business in which the occupant is engaged, or which he permits to be carried on there. „ There must be at least some mutuality of interest in the subject to which the visitor’s business relates, although the particular thing which is the object of the visit may not be for the benefit of the occupant.”
Plummer v. Dill,
But Mathias left the area used by passengers and ascended to an uрper floor for the purpose of taking photographs. There he found the canopy an obstacle to his view of the persons he wished to photograph. Abandoning the idea, he was in the act of returning to that part of the premises devoted to the use of passengers when some employees of the depot offered to assist him in his project. On this point we find a dispute in the evidence: Mathias testified that he was told to get out on the canopy; the employees of defendant testified that they told him to use the window sill for a vantage point.
That the wind-break of the window was removed by a depot employee; that Mathias .climbed on the sill and, with his back to the canopy, used his hands as a support preparatory tо lowering himself to the canopy; that his camera was handed to him by one of the employees, are undisputed matters. If there was a dispute as to the extent of the invitation, or if the invitation of the employees was equivocal, these undisputed acts of Mathias and the employees give color and content to its meaning.
*229
Denver City Tramway Co. v. Brumley,
Although Mathias was. an invitee while using that portion of the premises provided for passengers and others properly at the depot, and would have been restored to such status had he not been persuaded to accept the assistance of the depot employees, he was a licensee when he ventured upon the sill and canopy.
McNamara v. MacLean,
Ordinarily, the owner of premises owes the licensee the duty of not wilfully or wantonly injuring him.
Lunt v. Post Publishing Co.,
Inhering in certain relationships is the doctrine of assumption of risk. It applies to the relationship between an owner of рremises and a licensee. In this respect the licensee ordinarily assumes the risks incident to the conditions of the property upon which he ventures.
Lunt v. Post Publishing Co.,
supra. The much warmed-over expression that a licensee “takes the premises as he finds them”
(Gotch v. K. & B. Co.,
This rule, applicable to the relationship of an owner of property and a licensee, was a determinant invoked by the trial court. Here we think the trial court *230 was in error, for once the owner of property becomes aware that a licensee is embarked upon a course which will likely result in injury to him because of a dangerous condition of the premises, he has a duty to warn the licensee, and the failure to give such warning amounts to wilfulness or wantonness on the owner’s pаrt. Lunt v. Post Publishing Co., supra.
Notwithstanding knowledge of a danger, justifiable distraction or forgetfulness may excuse a party injured thereby.
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Sanger,
The doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk in the law of torts is expressed in the broad maxim, “volenti non fit injuria.” Knowledge and appreciation of the danger are essential ingredients of this principle.
D.&R.G.R. Co. v. Gannon,
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to grant a new trial.
Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Hall not participating.