Blodgett v. B. H. Dyas Co.

California Supreme Court Oct 25, 1935 No. L. A. 15266Published

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a pedestrian who heedlessly walks into an open stairway in broad daylight while distracted is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, barring recovery regardless of any alleged ordinance violation by the property owner.

Issues

Whether a property owner is liable for injuries sustained by an invitee who falls into an open stairway in broad daylight while distracted.
Whether the absence of a handrail required by city ordinance constitutes actionable negligence when it is not the proximate cause of the injury.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The evidence shows without conflict that plaintiff heedlessly walked into an open stairway in broad daylight.”

“There is no duty to give any warning in broad daylight of the presence of a stairway and persons must use their eyes to protect themselves from such obvious dangers.”

“The evidence shows that the lack of the handrail was neither the proximate nor any cause of plaintiff’s fall.”

THE COURT.

After a further consideration of the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, we arc convinced that it has reached a correct conclusion therein. We therefore adopt said opinion, written by Justice

pro tempore

Edmonds of the Second District Court of Appeal, First Division, as the opinion of this court. It is as follows:

“Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of nonsuit rendered against her in an action for personal injuries.

“At the time of the accident she was walking east on Seventh street in downtown Los Angeles, looking into the show windows of the building occupied by the defendant. Somewhere near the center, of this building bn the Seventh street side there was a recess from which a stairway led to the basement. This recess from a point about five feet from the sidewalk which was immediately adjacent to the building, was almost entirely occupied by the stairway, which was ten feet in width.

“Plaintiff, intent upon a suit of clothes in the window walked around the corner of the show window on Seventh street into the entry and stepped into the stairway, receiving injuries for which she claims damages. She testified that she did not look down at the pavement on which she was walking, that she did not see the stairway nor know it was there, Her entire attention was fixed upon the suit in the window.

“The evidence shows without conflict that plaintiff heedlessly walked into an open stairway in broad daylight. She ■ was a pedestrian on a busy street, paying no attention whatever to where she was walking. The trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for a nonsuit.

“The owner of property, in so far as an invitee is concerned, is not an insurer of safety but must use reasonable care to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition and give warning of latent or concealed perils. He is not liable for injury to an invitee resulting from a danger which was obvious or should have been observed in the exercise of reasonable care.

(Shanley

American Olive Co.,

185 Cal. 552 [197

[513]

Blodgett v. B. H. Dyas Co.

AI Brief

THE COURT.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief