Case Title: CAMPBELL v BOZEMAN CMM HOTEL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-10-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12249 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A C A R O L LEA CAMPBELL, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, B O Z W N C O M M U N I T Y HOTEL, d/b/a B A X T E R HOTEL, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Lyman H. Bennett, Jr . argued, Bozeman, Montana. For Respondent: Brown and Gilbert, Bozeman, Montana. Gene I. Brown argued, Bozeman, Montana. - - Submitted: September 27, 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by p l a i n t i f f , Carol Lea Campbell, from a judgment f o r defendant, Bozeman Community Hotel, d/b/a/ Baxter Hotel i n Bozeman, Montana, i n an action f o r personal i n j u r i e s brought by p l a i n t i f f i n the eighteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Gallatin. The undisputed factual s i t u a t i o n giving r i s e t o the action i s t h a t on M a y 7, 1971, p l a i n t i f f was a b u s i e s s i n v i t e e i n the Baxter Hotel during the noon lunch hour and f e l l while descending a stairway i n the h o t e l , sustaining a laceration on her r i g h t leg of approximately seven inches i n length a s a r e s u l t of the f a l l . The physical configuration of the h o t e l includes a dining room, lobby, and o f f i c e on the f i r s t f l o o r and a rest-room on the mezzanine. In the lobby was a stairway ascending t o t h e mez- zanine which was open t o h o t e l patrons using the rest-room f a c i l i t i e s . The steps of the stairway consisted of a f l a t hard surfaced stone material c a l l e d "terrazo" with the leading edge of each s t e p covered with a metal s t r i p . P l a i n t i f f alleged t h a t on the day of the accident, a f t e r completing lunch, she ascended the s t a i r s t o use the rest-room and upon returning down the stairway slipped a t approximately the fourth s t a i r from the bottom and f e l l the remaining four s t a i r s , lacerating her r i g h t leg on one of the lower s t a i r s , P l a i n t i f f alleged t h a t due t o defendant's negligent main- tenance of the stairway she suffered damages f o r l o s s of wages i n the amount of $283.50, medical expenses of $138.95, and further unspecified future medical expense which she a n t i c i p a t e s ; a l l of which totaled a demand i n the amount of $5,422.45, plus costs. ~ e f e n d a n t ' s answer alleged that p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint failed t o s t a t e a claim against the defendant and denied a l l allegations made by p l a i n t i f f . A p r e t r i a l conference was held on November 29, 1971, resulting i n a p r e t r i a l order dated December 1 7 , 1971, which contained substantially the identical allegations of both parties with the single addition that defendant alleged the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The issue of law thus s e t for t r i a l was whether negligence of the defendant proximately caused p l a i n t i f f ' s injury and whether p l a i n t i f f was contributorily negligent. Trial began on December 17, 1971, with a six man jury by agreement of the parties pursuant t o section 93-1205, R.C.M. 1947. Trial was then adjourned u n t i l December 21, 1971, and on the same day it concluded with a jury verdict and judg- ment for defendant, Baxter Hotel. Plaintiff appeals from that verdict and judgment. Appellant raises these issues on appeal: 1. Was the jury entitled t o disregard the undisputed testimony of p l a i n t i f f and her witnesses that plaintiff as a business invitee i n the hotel operated by the defendant caught her heel while descending a stairway open for her use a s such business invitee because of a projection of a metal s t r i p not open t o observation and of which she was not warned by defendant and as a result injured herself? 2, Was the p l a i n t i f f entitled t o a verdict i n t h i s action? 3, Did the court e r r i n denying p l a i n t i f f ' s motion for directed verdict a t the close of a l l the evidence i n t h i s case? 4. Did the court e r r i n denying p l a i n t i f f ' s motion for new t r i a l i n t h i s action? In the evidence p l a i n t i f f produced a t t r i a l she attempted t o establish the existence of a defective or hazardous stairway, P l a i n t i f f ' s claim was predicated upon the theory that the metal s t r i p on the s t a i r was raised and her heel caught on that metal strip, causing her to fall. Plaintiff drew a picture to illustrate to the jury how her heel caught on the metal strip, She also physically demonstrated to the jury the manner in which she descended the stairs and how her heel caught on the metal strip. The testimony of plaintiff's witness, Mrs. Fred Davis, who had accompanied plaintiff on the day of the accident, was offered to show that the mother of Mrs. Davis had, on one or two occa- sions, caught her heel on the stairway in question, Defendant, on cross-examination of Mrs. Davis, developed evidence that the mother of Mrs. Davis was elderly. Mrs. Davis testified: 1 1 I will be very honest with you. My mother liked to wear very high heels and a little higher than for her age, and I was concerned about her. She had stumbled a couple of times, so I was concerned for myself. " Defendant's evidence chiefly involved the testimony of its sole witness, Duncan MacNab, a professional photographer. In addition to photographs of the stairs, MacNab used a straight-edge yardstick in the taking of one photograph to show that the metal strip was not raised. In his testimony, MacNab supported and explained the use of the straight-edge yardstick in taking the photograph. He testified the metal strip on the stair was not raised. Plaintiff argued at trial, and on appeal, that the photo- graphs and testimony of MacNab pertained to the condition of the stairs in November 1971 when the pictures were taken and again on December 16, 1971, the day before the trial, when MacNab had again investigated the stairs. Plaintiff argues that no evidence was offered by defendant as to the condition of th.e stairway on the date of the accident, therefore, the testimony of Mrs. Davis and of plaintiff remains undisputed, From an examination of Mrs. Davis' testimony, it is apparent that she did not see a raised metal strip as she descended the stairs in front of plaintiff and the only testi- mony that she could offer in regard to the stairway was con- cerning her mother's experience with the stairway on other occasions. P l a i n t i f f ' s d i r e c t testimony was t h a t she caught her heel on the metal s t r i p which she said extended above the s t a i r surface but was not noticeable a s she descended the stairway. On cross-examination, she t e s t i f i e d she never saw the raised metal s t r i p before her f a l l and corrected the answer she had o r i g i n a l l y given i n deposition testimony. She a l s o t e s t i f i e d she did not examine the s t a i r s a f t e r she f e l l , and then admitted she never did actually see t h a t the metal s t r i p was raised. Finally, upon r e b u t t a l testimony and recross-examina- t i o n , she t e s t i f i e d : "Q. Now, with respect t o the f a l l t h a t you had i n the Baxter Hotel on May 7 t h i s year, was there o r was there not something t h a t caused you t o t r i p and f a l l ? A. Yes, sir. "Q. And did you observe it before you f e l l ? A.No, sir. "MR. BENNETT: That i s a l l . "THE COURT: You may cross. "BY MR. BROWN: "Q. Miss Campbell, do you know what i t was t h a t you tripped on ? "A. I have no idea, but there was something there t h a t caused m e t o t r i p and f a l l . " The single issue here involves the basic question of whether o r not the stairway was defective. This Court recently stated i n Laurie v. M & L Realty Corp,, Mont . , 498 P.2d 1192, 29 St.Rep. 478, t h a t the p l a i n t i f f has the burden of proving both negligence and proximate cause t o sustain a claim f o r r e l i e f based on alleged negligence. Thus, a p l a i n t i f f cannot recover without proof of negligence on the p a r t of a defendant. The mere f a c t t h a t a p l a i n t i f f t r i p s and f a l l s does not make a defendant l i a b l e . The owner of business premises i s not an insurer against a l l accidents which might b e f a l l business invitees on h i s premises. McIntosh v. Linder-Kind Lumber Co., 144 Mont. 1, 393 P.2d 782; Mellon v. Kelly, 99 Mont. 10, 41 P.2d 49. The single f a c t t h a t t h i s Court finds i n the record supporting p l a i n t i f f ' s prima f a c i e case i s the unexplained f a c t t h a t plain- t i f f f e l l on the stairway of the Baxter Hotel. N o evidence has been adduced a s t o proof of a raised metal s t r i p , which p l a i n t i f f f i r s t t e s t i f i e d t o i n her deposition, but l a t e r changed, Sub- sequently, a t t r i a l , she t e s t i f i e d she did not know what object she tripped over. I n d i r e c t contrast t o the claimed testimonial proof of a defect, defendant's witness produced photographs and testimony t h a t a s of November 1971, there was no defect i n the nature of a raised metal s t r i p . Even granting p l a i n t i f f ' s objection t o the evidence offered by defendant because the photographs were taken s i x months a f t e r the accident, the burden of proving a breach of duty by way of a defect causing i n j u r y was not met by p l a i n t i f f . Other testimony i n the record reveals t h a t t h e stairway i n question had a handrail which was being used by p l a i n t i f f a t the time she f e l l , Similarly, i t was established t h a t lighting and v i s i b i l i t y were not factors i n the accident. It was further established t h a t p l a i n t i f f was acquainted with the stairway and had used it over a period of years. It thus remains t h a t the f a t a l flaw i n p l a i n t i f f ' s case was the i n a b i l i t y of p l a i n t i f f t o show a defect which caused the i n j u r i e s complained of i n the nature of negligent mairtenance of the stairway. The jury's conclusion was t h a t defendant was not g u i l t y of negligence and t h a t p l a i n t i f f tripped and f e l l by her own devices. W e find nothing t o d The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s . ~ s s o c i d e Justices.