Henry B. Deane and Kathleen P. Deane v. United States

D.C. Circuit

Henry B. Deane and Kathleen P. Deane v. United States

244 F.2d 776

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedJune 13, 1957

Docket13575_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 244 F.2d 776 (Henry B. Deane and Kathleen P. Deane v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henry B. Deane and Kathleen P. Deane v. United States, 244 F.2d 776 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinions

EDGERTON, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment for the defendant in a suit against the United States under the Tort Claims Act [28 U. S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671-2680]. On behalf of his employer, the American Surety Company of New York, plaintiff Henry B. Deane called on a Mr. Audette in the government office where he worked, on business that concerned the government. Plaintiff entered the office from a public corridor, through an unlocked door with Mr. Audette’s name on it, after seeing him through frosted glass in the door. Just inside the room, a slack electric cord lay on the floor across the entrance, connecting an outlet in the wall on plaintiff’s left with an adding machine close to filing cabinets on his right. The outlet to which the cord was attached was about 6 feet from the floor and 8 to 10 inches from the” door, and the cord hung to the floor about 4 inches from the wall. When he entered the room the plaintiff immediately greeted Mr. Audette, who was using the adding machine. He told the plaintiff to come in and turned to get him a chair. Plaintiff slipped or tripped on the cord, fell, and was badly injured.

As the court found, the plaintiff was an “invitee” and his “fall was the proximate result of the cord on the floor.” But the court found that he was negligent and that the defendant was not negligent. The findings regarding negligence are in our opinion clearly erroneous. We think it clearly negligent to let a slack electric cord lie on the floor across the entrance to a public office during business hours, with no warning either printed or oral. We think it clearly not negligent for a visitor to fail to discover and avoid this extraordinary hazard.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

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

EDGERTON, Chief Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment for the defendant in a suit against the United States under the Tort Claims Act [28 U. S.C.A. §§ 1346, 2671-2680]. On behalf of his employer, the American Surety Company of New York, plaintiff Henry B. Deane called on a Mr. Audette in the government office where he worked, on business that concerned the government. Plaintiff entered the office from a public corridor, through an unlocked door with Mr. Audette’s name on it, after seeing him through frosted glass in the door. Just inside the room, a slack electric cord lay on the floor across the entrance, connecting an outlet in the wall on plaintiff’s left with an adding machine close to filing cabinets on his right. The outlet to which the cord was attached was about 6 feet from the floor and 8 to 10 inches from the” door, and the cord hung to the floor about 4 inches from the wall. When he entered the room the plaintiff immediately greeted Mr. Audette, who was using the adding machine. He told the plaintiff to come in and turned to get him a chair. Plaintiff slipped or tripped on the cord, fell, and was badly injured.

As the court found, the plaintiff was an “invitee” and his “fall was the proximate result of the cord on the floor.” But the court found that he was negligent and that the defendant was not negligent. The findings regarding negligence are in our opinion clearly erroneous. We think it clearly negligent to let a slack electric cord lie on the floor across the entrance to a public office during business hours, with no warning either printed or oral. We think it clearly not negligent for a visitor to fail to discover and avoid this extraordinary hazard.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 F.2d 776, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-b-deane-and-kathleen-p-deane-v-united-states-cadc-1957.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack