Garrett v. W. S. Butterfield Theatres, Inc.

Michigan Supreme Court

Garrett v. W. S. Butterfield Theatres, Inc.

246 N.W. 57, 261 Mich. 262, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 745

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 3, 1933

DocketDocket No. 42, Calendar No. 36,705.

StatusPublished

Cited by47 cases

This text of 246 N.W. 57 (Garrett v. W. S. Butterfield Theatres, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Garrett v. W. S. Butterfield Theatres, Inc., 246 N.W. 57, 261 Mich. 262, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 745 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Fead, J.

Plaintiff, 70 years old, attended defendant’s theatre with Mrs. Nelson. They went through the ladies’ lounge, a dimly lighted room, to the toilet room, in the floor of which was a step down of four and one-half inches. Mrs. Nelson opened the door, plaintiff went through, fell at the step, and was injured. She had judgment for damages.

The door of the toilet room swung into the lounge. The floor level of the lounge continued into the toilet room about nine inches beyond the door casing. This space was covered with a tile slab of pinkish hue. The floor proper consisted of tile blocks about eight inches square, set diagonally to the line of the step and alternating pink and gray or buff. The toilet room was well or brightly lighted. There were no structural defects in the floor or step.

Different floor levels in private and public buildings, connected by steps, are so common that the possibility of their presence is anticipated by prudent persons. The construction is not negligent *264 unless, by its character, location, or surrounding conditions, a reasonably prudent person would not be likely to expect a step or see it. Brown v. Berles, 234 Mich. 353; Albachten v. Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 (160 N. W. 1012); Ware v. Evangelical Baptist, etc., Society, 181 Mass. 285 (63 N. E. 885); Johnson v. Desmond, 165 N. Y. Supp. 290; Main v. Lehman, 294 Mo. 579 (243 S. W. 91).

Argument is made that the dim lighting of the lounge contrasted with the bright lighting in the toilet room and the color scheme of the toilet floor had such effect upon the visibility of the step as to render the question of negligence in maintaining it for the jury.

Toilets are frequently put in left-over spaces and have vagaries of construction. The door was a warning that there might be a difference in floor levels. The act of opening the door towards him would require a person to pause long enough to have ample opportunity to see the step. The situation contained no element of a trap. A reasonably prudent person, watching where he was going, would have seen the step. Defendant is not under legal duty to prevent careless persons from hurting themselves. "We think defendant was not guilty of negligence. Defendant’s motion non obstante veredicto should have been granted.

Reversed, without new trial, and with costs.

McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

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

Fead, J.

Plaintiff, 70 years old, attended defendant’s theatre with Mrs. Nelson. They went through the ladies’ lounge, a dimly lighted room, to the toilet room, in the floor of which was a step down of four and one-half inches. Mrs. Nelson opened the door, plaintiff went through, fell at the step, and was injured. She had judgment for damages.

The door of the toilet room swung into the lounge. The floor level of the lounge continued into the toilet room about nine inches beyond the door casing. This space was covered with a tile slab of pinkish hue. The floor proper consisted of tile blocks about eight inches square, set diagonally to the line of the step and alternating pink and gray or buff. The toilet room was well or brightly lighted. There were no structural defects in the floor or step.

Different floor levels in private and public buildings, connected by steps, are so common that the possibility of their presence is anticipated by prudent persons. The construction is not negligent *264 unless, by its character, location, or surrounding conditions, a reasonably prudent person would not be likely to expect a step or see it. Brown v. Berles, 234 Mich. 353; Albachten v. Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381 (160 N. W. 1012); Ware v. Evangelical Baptist, etc., Society, 181 Mass. 285 (63 N. E. 885); Johnson v. Desmond, 165 N. Y. Supp. 290; Main v. Lehman, 294 Mo. 579 (243 S. W. 91).

Argument is made that the dim lighting of the lounge contrasted with the bright lighting in the toilet room and the color scheme of the toilet floor had such effect upon the visibility of the step as to render the question of negligence in maintaining it for the jury.

Toilets are frequently put in left-over spaces and have vagaries of construction. The door was a warning that there might be a difference in floor levels. The act of opening the door towards him would require a person to pause long enough to have ample opportunity to see the step. The situation contained no element of a trap. A reasonably prudent person, watching where he was going, would have seen the step. Defendant is not under legal duty to prevent careless persons from hurting themselves. "We think defendant was not guilty of negligence. Defendant’s motion non obstante veredicto should have been granted.

Reversed, without new trial, and with costs.

McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 N.W. 57, 261 Mich. 262, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garrett-v-w-s-butterfield-theatres-inc-mich-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack