DocketNumber: Appeal, 36
Citation Numbers: 50 A.2d 751, 160 Pa. Super. 218, 1947 Pa. Super. LEXIS 264
Judges: Abnold, Baldbige, Ditheioh, Hiet, Reno, Rhodes, Ross
Filed Date: 10/10/1946
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
Argued October 10, 1946. This is an action in trespass brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff as the result of a fall in an elevator on the twentieth floor of a building owned and operated by defendant company, known as 1528 Walnut Street Building in the city of Philadelphia. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, the lower court refused defendant's motion for judgment n.o.v., and this appeal followed. The only question in the case is whether or not the plaintiff as a matter of law was contributorily negligent.
It is only in a clear case where the evidence is such that reasonable minded men can unite in the conclusion that a victim of an accident was negligent that a court is justified in declaring him negligent as a matter of law. McCracken v.Curwensville Borough,
The plaintiff was employed in an office on the twentieth floor of defendant's building. On January 18, 1945, at about 5:40 p.m., as she was entering defendant's elevator after it had stopped to receive and was receiving passengers at the twentieth floor, the plaintiff caught her toe on the floor of the elevator and as a result thereof *Page 221 fell and sustained various injuries. The elevator had stopped with its floor about "two or three inches" above the floor of the corridor from which plaintiff was entering. It is in evidence that there is no difference in color between the edge of the floor, the elevator floor and the space between. Two other passengers who entered the elevator a few feet in advance of the plaintiff were warned by the elevator operator to "watch your step"; this warning was in "a very low voice", was not heard by the plaintiff and was not repeated for her benefit.
The relation between the owner of an elevator for the use of passengers and those carried in it is similar to that between an ordinary common carrier of passengers and those carried by him.Riland v. Hirshler,
A witness for the plaintiff testified as follows: "The light is behind you in the hallway. The lights are dim in the elevator, so that when you are walking forward there isn't any light directly on the step into the elevator," Question: "How about this dark space between *Page 222 the elevator floor and the floor of the building itself, does that have any effect upon your visual capacity of that variation of elevation?" Answer: "Yes, because it is not noticeable. There isn't any light on the ground you are walking toward, with the light behind you." Another witness testified as follows: Question: ". . . With this light coming from the rear what effect, if any, would it have on the lighting in front of you as you waited for the elevator to come?" Answer: "It would cast a shadow." It was also testified as follows by a witness for the plaintiff: Question: "Now, when the elevator would stop at a point two to two and a half inches above the level of the floor, as you stood outside the elevator could you tell that that elevator floor had not stopped level with the floor of the building just by looking at it?" Answer: "No, you wouldn't notice it because this black band is in front of the elevator." And again: Question: "How about this dark space between the elevator floor and the floor of the building itself, does that have any effect upon your visual capacity of that variation of elevation?" Answer: "Yes, because it is not noticeable. There isn't any light on the ground you are walking toward with the light behind you."
With these existing physical conditions — the lighting, whether it be termed dim, or uncertain, or confusing, and the similarity of the coloring of the floor of the corridor and the floor of the elevator — the plaintiff attempted to enter the waiting elevator. The door was open, an invitation to enter where other passengers were riding, including two people who had entered the elevator at the twentieth floor immediately ahead of the plaintiff. She had the right to assume within reasonable limits that the defendant would perform the duty it owed to her of keeping its elevator safe for passengers and of giving warning of any failure to maintain or operate it in such condition of safety. There was no apparent reason for apprehension and no warning had *Page 223
been given to her. Her caution would be relaxed because, as stated by the present Mr. Chief Justice MAXEY in Murphy v.Bernheim Sons, Inc.,
In Lewis v. Duquesne Inclined Plane Co.,
Judgment affirmed.
McKnight v. S. S. Kresge Co. , 285 Pa. 489 ( 1926 )
McCracken v. Curwensville Borough , 309 Pa. 98 ( 1932 )
Kulka v. Nemirovsky , 314 Pa. 134 ( 1934 )
Lewis v. Duquesne Inclined Plane Co. , 346 Pa. 43 ( 1942 )
Pinto v. Bell Fruit Co., Inc. , 148 Pa. Super. 132 ( 1941 )
Weismiller Et Vir. v. Farrell , 153 Pa. Super. 366 ( 1943 )
Riland v. Hirshler , 1898 Pa. Super. LEXIS 308 ( 1898 )
Adams v. Fields , 308 Pa. 301 ( 1932 )
Fox v. Philadelphia , 208 Pa. 127 ( 1904 )
Murphy v. Bernheim & Sons, Inc. , 327 Pa. 285 ( 1937 )
Chidester v. Pittsburgh , 354 Pa. 417 ( 1946 )
Stewart Et Vir v. Pittsburgh , 157 Pa. Super. 347 ( 1945 )