Home/Court of Appeals of Arizona/Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward

Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward

422 P.2d 141, 4 Ariz. App. 510, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 324
Court of Appeals of Arizona·Decided January 10, 1967·No. No. 1 CA-CIV 276·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

STEVENS, Judge.

This appeal relates to the liability of a business to its business invitee for personal injuries sustained by the invitee in an attempt to be seated upon a chair equipped with.casters.

Nan Daugherty, herein referred to as the plaintiff, is a housewife. The defendant, Montgomery Ward, issued a sales contract. Thereafter problems arose in relation to that contract,, and the plaintiff was invited to the defendant’s business office to discuss the matter. On 4 October 1961, she went to the .defendant’s office with an adult son, the youngest of her four children. The office was located in a new building which had first been occupied the previous August. The plaintiff was. directed to the. desk of a woman employee. This employee, who was no longer employed by the defendant at the time of the trial, did not testify. The employee experienced difficulty in locating the proper file. During this time, the plaintiff and her son stood at the desk for a period of 10 to 20 minutes. As the employee turned to leave the room to search for the missing information, “She said, 'Have a chair, it’s going to be a little while’ ”, or some substantially similar phrase. With that comment she pushed the chair in question toward the plaintiff and then left the room.

The plaintiff and her son were then alone in the room. There were no other witnesses to the events which immediately followed. The testimony of the plaintiff is not fully consistent as to these occurrences. There was some variance between her testimony and the testimony of her son. The facts developed rapidly. It is not clear whether [511] the chair was moving or stationary at the time the plaintiff attempted to be seated thereon. It is not clear whether she actually momentarily sat on the edge of the chair and then fell or failed to touch the chair as she was in the process of seating herself. It is clear, however, that she sat on the floor and injured herself. The evidence established that the chair came to rest a short distance from her position on the floor.

Among the exhibits introduced in evidence are two photographs which have been reproduced and incorporated in this opinion. The photographs disclose the type of chair, desk and floor in question. The [512] floor was smooth, shiny and possibly slippery. It is agreed, however, that the plaintiff did not slip and fall due to a slippery floor surface. All of the furniture including the chairs were new. The chairs rolled easily on the floor surface. Another former employee, who testified for the plaintiff, stated that he was not accustomed to sitting on this type of chair, but instead upon chairs “without wheels, with legs”. He also testified that the defendant had chairs with legs and without wheels which were available.

[511]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward, 422 P.2d 141, 4 Ariz. App. 510, 1967 Ariz. App. LEXIS 324 (Ark. Ct. App. 1967).

422 P.2d 141 (Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward
428 P.2d 419 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1967)