Micek v. Weaver-Jackson Co.

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 1936 No. Civ. 10665Published

Before: Gould

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the law regarding latent defects, thereby depriving the defendant of its right to have that defense considered. While the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was applicable, the defendant was entitled to have the jury instructed on its theory that the accident resulted from a latent defect it could not have discovered through ordinary care.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the law relating to latent defects.
Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was properly invoked in the case.
Whether the defendant is liable for injuries caused by latent defects that could not be discovered by the exercise of ordinary care.

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court erroneously, we believe, refused to advise the jurors upon the law relating to concealed or latent defects in the chair”

“Neither was appellant responsible for latent defects in its equipment which it could not have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care”

“defendants had the right to rely upon the defense that a latent j defect was the sole cause of the accident, and appropriate instructions relative thereto should have been given to the jury.”

GOULD, J.,

pro

tem.

Plaintiff Glen W. Micek, a customer in a “beauty parlor” operated by defendant corporation, was injured when a swivel chair in which she was invited to sit for the purpose of receiving a hair treatment collapsed, precipitating her to the floor. Upon a trial by jury damages were awarded to her and to her husband, also plaintiff herein. Defendant corporation appeals.

Testimony adduced in behalf of plaintiffs offered no hint as to the cause of the collapse of the chair. Defendants’ witnesses testified that the chair was of standard make, commonly used for the purpose; that it was one of a large jnumber used in their stores; that the particular chair in question was one of a dozen purchased five years before and continuously used without accident or breakage since the date of purchase; that the equipment of the “beauty parlor” was regularly inspected; fhat the collapse of the chair involved was due to the breaking of a ¾-inch thick steel spindle, which spindle was concealed in a metal sheath so that the spindle itself would not be . observed except by disassembling the chair, and that inspection of the broken part after the accident revealed a clean, fresh break.

[21]

Appellant seeks to avoid liability upon the theory that the accident was an unavoidable one, and complains of certain instructions given or refused by the court.

The injured customer was an invitee upon the premises of appellant, to whom appellant owed the duty of exercising ordinary care and prudence

(Brinkworth

Sam Seelig Co.,

51 Cal. App. 668 [197 Pac. 427]), and the latter was not the insurer of the safety of its invitees

(Blodgett

B. H. Dyas Co.,

4 Cal. (2d) 511 [50 Pac. (2d) 801]). Neither was appellant responsible for latent defects in its equipment which it could not have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care

Micek v. Weaver-Jackson Co.

AI Brief

GOULD, J.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief