The opinion
OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
NEARN, Judge.
A courteous Petition to Rehear has been filed by counsel for plaintiffs.
The Petition calls to the attention of the Court the case of Railroad v. Hatch (1906), 116 Tenn. 580 , 94 S.W. 671 which was not cited in any of the briefs. The Petition states that the case came to the attention of counsel only the day after the receipt of the Court’s Opinion in this matter.
It is the argument of petitioner that Railroad v. Hatch, supra, is the decisive authority and that Supreme Court decision is contrary to our ruling in the instant case.
*920 In the newly cited case, a jury verdict had been entered against the defendants which was sought to be reversed on appeal. Plaintiff was a female passenger on a Pullman car operated by the railroad. While occupying the status of a passenger, in the Pullman car, plaintiff was accosted and insulted by certain crude male passengers and the jury compensated her for her injuries. At the time plaintiff was accosted neither the Conductor nor the Porter were present nor anywhere near. The question on appeal was whether or not from such fact the jury could conclude the defendants were negligent in their duty to plaintiff. The Supreme Court first reaffirmed the law to be that if there is no proof of circumstances which would create in reasonable minds an apprehension of danger, there can be no liability resulting from the unforewarned danger. We certainly did no violence to that principle in our Opinion in this case, but it is the argument of petitioner that the facts of the instant case are analogous to the facts of the Hatch case which facts would, as they did in Hatch, create an exception to the announced general rule. We must disagree for we are of the opinion that the facts are not analogous. First, in the Hatch case it was the duty of the defendants because of the passenger relationship to have some attendant at a particular place, that is, in the railroad car. The persons who were supposed to discharge this duty had abandoned their post and absented themselves for approximately two hours. Therefore, one who has a duty to be at a particular place at a particular time cannot escape liability on the basis of lack of knowledge or warning of a danger, when the very reason he is ignorant of the warnings or danger is because of the negligence of abandoning the post.
In the instant case, the defendants were under no duty to maintain a security officer in the restrooms at all times and in appellee’s brief, it was never contended that such duty was upon the defendants.
The Petition to Rehear is respectfully denied.
CARNEY, P. J„ and MATHERNE, J., concur.