Topley v. Zeeman

California Supreme Court Aug 5, 1932 No. Docket No. S.F. 14533.Published

Before: Waste

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants because the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom were sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, and the issue of whether the defect was patent should have been submitted to the jury.

Issues

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, precluding a directed verdict.
Whether the defect in the bathtub support was a patent defect of which the plaintiff had knowledge as a matter of law.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A court may direct a verdict only when, disregarding conflicting evidence and giving plaintiff’s evidence all the value to which it is legally entitled, including every legitimate inference which may be drawn therefrom, no evidence of sufficient substantiality to support a verdict in favor of plaintiff, if given, may be found.”

“We cannot agree with the defendants that the defect involved in this case was such as to constitute a patent defect of which the plaintiff had knowledge.”

WASTE, C. J.

— Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered for the defendants pursuant to a directed verdict. The action is one for damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff as the result of a fall in a bathtub in a hotel operated by the defendants.

[184]

It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff had been living at the hotel for several days and had used the bathtub many times prior to the accident. She testified that as she stepped into the tub on the night of the accident “the legs spread out from under the tub and my feet slipped, and I fell back on my back on the rim of the tub”. Plaintiff also testified that, as the legs of the tub spread, the front end thereof was precipitated to the floor, causing her to fall as above narrated.

The tub was installed against the wall of the bathroom and approximately five or six inches above the level of the floor. Originally it was supported by four metal legs, but it appears from the evidence, and defendants do not deny the fact, that several years prior to the accident one of the legs on the side next to the wall had been broken off and that side of the tub was thereafter supported by three blocks of wood piled one on top of the other. These blocks were not fastened together nor were they in any manner fastened to the floor. They were apparently held in place solely by the weight of the bathtub resting on them. Plaintiff’s testimony discloses that prior to the accident she had seen the blocks under the tub but “didn’t know what they were there for” because “they were way back, and it was dark in there. I just saw the ends of boards”.

Immediately following the accident examination disclosed that the two metal legs on the front side of the tub were spread apart and broken off and the wooden blocks were displaced, causing the tub to tilt and rest on the floor.

Defendants’ evidence was to the effect that the blocks had been supporting the tub for over eight years; that the bathroom and the tub had been inspected frequently by Mrs. Zeeman, one of the defendants; that at no time had she ever found the tub to be in any way defective; that the blocks at all times appeared to be firmly in place; and that when examined subsequent to the accident they were not water logged or cracked and appeared to be in good condition. However, on cross-examination, Mrs. Zeeman stated that when inspecting the bathroom prior to the accident she did not look “to see if [the blocks] had slipped” for “they always seemed in place when I went into the room”.

Topley v. Zeeman

AI Brief

WASTE, C. J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief