In the law of negligence, and with reference to trespasses on realty, invitation is the act of one who solicits or incites others to enter upon, remain in, or make use of, his property or structures thereon, or who so arranges the property or the means of access to it or of transit over it as to induce the reasonable belief that he expects and intends that others shall come upon it or pass over it. See Sweeney v. Old Colony & N. R. Co., 10 Allen (Mass.) 373, S7 Am. Dec. 044; Wilson v. New York, N. H. & II. R. Co., 18 R. I. 401, 29 Atl. 258; Wright v. Boston & A. R. Co., 142 Mass. 300, 7 N. E. 800. Thus the proprietor of a store, theatre, or amusement park “invites” the public to come upon his premises for such purposes as are connected with its intended use. Again, the fact that safety gates at a railroad crossing, which should be closed in case of danger, are left standing open, is an “invitation” to the traveler on the highway to cross. Roberts v. Delaware & II. Canal Co., 177 Pa. 183. 35 Atl. 723. So. bringing a passenger train on a railroad to a full stop at a regular station is an “invitation to alight.” License distinguished. A license is a passive permission on the part of the owner of premises, with reference to other persons entering upon or using them, while an invitation implies a request, solicitation or desire that they should do so. An invitation may be inferred where there is a common interest or mutual advantage ; while a license will be inferred where the object is the mere pleasure or benefit of the person using it. Bennett v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 102 U. S. 580, 20 L. Ed. 235; Weldon v. Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co., 2 Pennewill (Del.) 1, 43 Atl. 159. An owner owes to a licensee no duty as to the condition of the premises (unless imposed by statute) save that he should not knowingly let him run upon a hidden peril or wilfully cause him harm; while to one invited he is under the obligation to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe and secure condition. Beehler v. Daniels, 18 It. I. 563, 29 Atl. 6, 27 L, R. A. 512, 49 Am. St. Rep. 790. Express and implied. An invitation may be express, when the owner or occupier of the land by words invites another to cotne upon it or make use of it or of something thereon ; or it may be implied when such owner or occupier by acts or conduct leads another to believe that the land or something thereon was intended to be used as he uses them, and that such use is not only acquiesced in by the owner or occupier, but is in accordance with the intention or design for which the way or place or thing was adapted and prepared and allowed to be used. Turess v. New York. S. & W. R. Co., 01 N. J. Law, 314, 40 Atl. 014; Fnrey v. New York Cent. R. Co., 67 N. J. Law, 270, 51 Atl. 505; Lepnick v. Gaddis, 72 Miss. 200. 10 South. 213, 26 L. R. A. 686. 48 Am. St. Rep. 547; Plummer v. Dill, 156 Mass. 426. 31 N. E. 128, 32 Am. St. Rep. 463; Sesler v. Rolfe Coal & Coke Co., 51 W. Va. 318, 41 S. E. 216.

• PREFERRED CREDITOR
• PREFERRED DEBT
• PREFERRED DIVIDEND
• PREFERRED DIVIDEND
• PREFERRED EQUITY
• PREFERRED HABITAT THEORY
• PREFERRED MODES INDICATOR
• PREFERRED POSITION
• PREFERRED PROVIDER ORGANIZATION
• PREFERRED RISK
• PREFERRED RISK
• PREFERRED STOCK
• PREFERRED STOCK ACCOUNT
• PRE-FUNDED BOND
• PREGNANCY
• PREGNANT NEGATIVE
• PREJUDICE
• PREJUDICE
• PREJUDICE OF JUDGE
• PREJUDICE OF JUROR
• PREJUDICIAL ERROR
• PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE
• PRELATE
• PRELEVEMENT
• PRE-LICENSING EDUCATION REQUIREMENT