Moore v. Marshall

California Court of Appeal Nov 14, 1940 No. Civ. 2473Published

Before: Marks

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the question of whether an invitee was contributorily negligent in failing to perceive a dangerous condition created by the owner or in failing to use a handrail is a question of fact for the trial court, not a matter of law.

Issues

Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law.
Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of prior falls by the plaintiff or other individuals on the stairs.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Whether she knew or should have known of the danger caused by the shadow cast on the step and landing and whether she took reasonably prudent precautions for her safety while descending the stairs was a question of fact for the trial court”

“The question of whether, in the exercise of due caution, Mrs. Moore should have held onto this rail and, whether, if she had done so, her fall might have been prevented, are questions of fact and not of law.”

MARKS, J.

Plaintiffs are husband and wife. They brought this action against defendants to recover damages

[492]

for injuries suffered by Mrs. Moore when she fell while descending a flight of stairs leading from the second floor of a building owned by Mrs. Marshall. As Mrs. Marshall was the sole owner of the building, judgment was rendered against her alone and this appeal followed.

The accident happened just before noon on June 9, 1937, in Indio, in Riverside County. It is admitted that Mrs. Moore was an invitee in the building.

The building in question was built in 1935. It is two stories in height and faces north. A single stairway leads from the ground floor to the second floor. The stairs are constructed of clay-burned tile, dark maroon in color. Thirteen steps lead from the ground floor to a landing from which the second floor is reached by thirteen additional steps. The landing is several feet above the top of the ground floor entrance to the stairway. The only light in the stairway, during the daytime, comes from the ground floor entrance and that diffused through glass doors of offices opening into the hallway at the top of the stairs. There was an electric light in the ceiling over the stairs but this was never illuminated during daylight hours.

During May of 1937 a cooling system was installed in the building. To make this system more effective double swinging doors were installed on the landing. The lower eighteen inches of these doors were constructed of wood. Above the wood were frosted glass panels. There is ample evidence in the record to the effect that the landing and step immediately above it were darkened by the shadow east by the solid eighteen inches at the lower portions of the doors. This evidence supports the finding to the effect that the stairway was dark and unlighted and the landing was hidden by the doors.

On the morning of the accident Mrs. Moore had consulted her dentist who had offices on the second floor of the building. When her visit was concluded she started down the stairs. She testified that she carefully observed her progress; that when she reached the step immediately above the landing she thought she had reached the landing and stepped out as though she were on the level; that the heel of her shoe caught on the outer edge of the step; that she fell onto the landing and suffered serious injuries.

Moore v. Marshall

AI Brief

MARKS, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief