Sylvia v. Mellema

California Court of Appeal

Sylvia v. Mellema

62 P.2d 746, 17 Cal. App. 2d 728, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 646

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 30, 1936

DocketCiv. 11179

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 62 P.2d 746 (Sylvia v. Mellema) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sylvia v. Mellema, 62 P.2d 746, 17 Cal. App. 2d 728, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 646 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

WOOD, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in iavor of defendants entered upon the return of the verdict of a jury. Plaintiff was a tenant in the apartment house conducted by defendants Mellema. She alleged in her complaint that the janitor of the apartment, defendant Amonoy, negligently left a puddle of soapy water on the kitchen floor causing her to slip and be thrown to the floor. She asked for damages suffered in the fall. Defendants deny negligence on their part and allege contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Upon the presentation of these issues to the jury a verdict was returned against plaintiff.

Plaintiff complains of the giving of the following instruction: “There was no absolute duty on the part of defendants to have the floor in a reasonably safe condition to walk upon. In this regard I instruct you that defendants’ duty was fulfilled when defendants used ordinary care, if you *729 find that they did 'use ordinary care.” We. find no error in this instruction. The proprietors of the apartment house were not insurers of plaintiff’s safety. It was their duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a safe condition. In Mautino v. Sutter Hosp. Assn., 211 Cal. 556 [296 Pac. 76], the court set forth the rules governing situations like those of the present case. The language used by the court is almost identical with the language of the instruction which is attacked by plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.

Grail, P. J., concurred.

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

WOOD, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in iavor of defendants entered upon the return of the verdict of a jury. Plaintiff was a tenant in the apartment house conducted by defendants Mellema. She alleged in her complaint that the janitor of the apartment, defendant Amonoy, negligently left a puddle of soapy water on the kitchen floor causing her to slip and be thrown to the floor. She asked for damages suffered in the fall. Defendants deny negligence on their part and allege contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Upon the presentation of these issues to the jury a verdict was returned against plaintiff.

Plaintiff complains of the giving of the following instruction: “There was no absolute duty on the part of defendants to have the floor in a reasonably safe condition to walk upon. In this regard I instruct you that defendants’ duty was fulfilled when defendants used ordinary care, if you *729 find that they did 'use ordinary care.” We. find no error in this instruction. The proprietors of the apartment house were not insurers of plaintiff’s safety. It was their duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a safe condition. In Mautino v. Sutter Hosp. Assn., 211 Cal. 556 [296 Pac. 76], the court set forth the rules governing situations like those of the present case. The language used by the court is almost identical with the language of the instruction which is attacked by plaintiff.

The judgment is affirmed.

Grail, P. J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 P.2d 746, 17 Cal. App. 2d 728, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sylvia-v-mellema-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack