NEGLIGENCE-DUTY OF CARE-DUTY OF POSSESSOR OF LAND CONDUCTING ACTIVITIES THEREON TO KEEP A LOOKOUT FOR LICENSEES

Plaintiff, seeking employment, came onto the site of a road construction project under defendant\u27s control as general contractor and posted by him with notices of construction and against trespassing. Plaintiff was struck by a materials truck backing, without lookout or warning, over the completed half of the road. On these facts the jury found that the truck was negligently operated and plaintiff prevailed. On appeal, held, affirmed. A contractor owes a duty of ordinary care to licensees in a case of active, as distinguished from passive negligence. Evidence as to the mode of operating the truck and likelihood of plaintiff\u27s presence in the position of peril was found sufficient to support the jury\u27s findings. One judge dissented, on grounds, inter alia, that the truck driver had no reason to anticipate a licensee\u27s presence in the path on the facts presented (notably the posted notices), and that the burden of warning thus imposed was unreasonable. Potter Title and Trust Co. v. Young, 367 Pa. 239, 80 A. (2d) 76 (1951)