Case Title: LAURIE v M L REALTY CORP

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12121 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A M A R G A R E T LAURIE, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, M & L REALTY CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: Fox Appellant : William T, Kelly argued, Billings, Montana. Keefer and Roybal, Billings, Montana. For Respondent : Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson & Gallagher, Billings, Montana, Stephen H. Foster argued, Billings, Montana. Submitted: May 16, 1972 Decided : M r . J u s t i c e Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court of the thirteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Yellowstone'County, entered a f t e r the court directed a verdict i n favor of defendant a t the close of the case. P l a i n t i f f , Margaret Laurie, brought action t o recover damages f o r i n j u r i e s sustained i n a f a l l down a stairway. Plain- t i f f was an employee of Colborn School Supply, Inc. Defendant, M & L Realty Corporation owned the building i n which Colborn operated i t s business. Colborn leased a portion of the building from defendant and occupied a l l of the main floor of the building, except one corner room which was used by the Bookmobile Service for the Billings Parmly Library. Colborn u t i l i z e d i t s space on the main floor primarily f o r o f f i c e s , f r e i g h t receiving and ship- ?ing, and a r e t a i l s t o r e it was developing. The second floor of the building was used by Colborn a s a storage place f o r i t s merchandise, and as a receiving-shipping department. A stairway and an elevator located within the space occupied by Colborn provided access between the two floors. The condition of the stairway when Colborn f i r s t took possession under i t s lease was not shown. The only evidence r e l a t i v e t o the condition of the stairway was p l a i n t i f f ' s own testimony and the testimony of Joanne Rost, an employee of Colborn, who began working about sixteen months before p l a i n t i f f f e l l on the s t a i r s . Both witnesses t e s t i f i e d t h a t the s t a i r s were old and steep, a s well a s cupped, rounded and worn. A handrail was located on one side of the stairway, but not on the other. The stairway was illuminated by a window a t the top and one lightbulb. A heavy metal door a t the top of the s t a i r s opened onto the landing. P l a i n t i f f s t a r t e d working f o r Colborn about four months prior t o the day she f e l l on the s t a i r s . Her job a s a c l e r k i n the retail store Colborn was establishing on the main floor frequently required her to move merchandise stored on the second floor down to the retail store on the first or main floor. When she had heavy loads of merchandise to move, she loaded it into a cart and used the freight elevator. She handcarried lighter items down the stairs. She had been up and down the stairs hundreds of times during the time she worked for Colborn, and according to her own testimony, knew the condition of the stairway. Occasionally, a customer of Colborn would go up the stairs to the second floor of the building to look at merchandise. Plaintiff fell down the stairs on November 25, 1966, while carrying merchandise from the second floor to a customer in the retail store. The complaint alleges with particularity that the stairway was dangerous because ( 1 ) the door at the top was unsafe, ( 2 ) there was no handrail on the left side, ( 3 ) the top step was slippery, and ( 4 ) the lighting was inadequate. However, plaintiff's entire testimony on direct examination re- garding the cause of her fall consisted only of the following question and answer: "Q. Would you please tell us why you fell. "A. Well, as I see it, when I had to come to the door with my packages in my left hand, I pushed with my right arm, being right-handed, and a little bit with my right shoulder to help me start the door opening. I stepped over to one side with my parcels in my left hand and waited for the door to start closing. You're in a small, kind of an inconvenient pattern when you do this. you're standing over away from the stair landing as you're waiting for the door to close. And then I carreback a couple of steps and got my self ready for my descent. I grabbed the handrail and started off the first step and fell." la in tiff's testimony on cross-examination added this: The door. With respect to the door at the top of the stairs, she testified: "Q. And you opened the door with your right hand and right shoulder? A. Right. "Q. And then you stepped onto the landing a t the top? A. Yes. "Q. As I understand it, you allowed the door t o close? A. It had closed, yes, when I s t a r t e d down the s t a i r s . "Q. The door had already closed behind you when you s t a r t e d down the s t a i r s . A. Yes. "Q. And the door d i d n ' t bump you o r anything when i t closed. A. No. 11 Lack of r a i l i n g on l e f t side. P l a i n t i f f ' s testimony firmly established t h a t the lack of a r a i l i n g on the l e f t side had nothing t o do with her f a l l . She t e s t i f i e d : "Q. As I understand it, with your r i g h t hand you grabbed onto the r a i l i n g , i s t h a t r i g h t ? A. I reached over f o r the right-hand r a i l i n g , yes. "Q. And you actually got your hand onto the r a i l i n g , d i d n ' t you? A. I had ahold of it. "Q. And, of course, the l e f t hand had merchandise i n i t , d i d n ' t i t ? A. Right. I I Illumination. P l a i n t i f f admitted t h a t the lighting condi- tions were not responsible f o r her accident. She t e s t i f i e d with respect t o the lighting: "Q. Now, where were you looking as you s t a r t e d down the s t a i r s ? A. Looking down towards m y f e e t . "Q. And you could see your f e e t , couldn't you? A. Yes. I I Q. You could a l s o see the s t a i r s ? A. Yes. "Q. It was l i g h t enough so you could see both your f e e t and the s t a i r s . A. I did see them, yes. "Q. So t h a t the lighting r e a l l y d i d n ' t have much t o do with your f a l l then, did i t ? A. Not i n i t s e l f , no, s i r . I I know That p l a i n t i f f did notlwhether her f a l l was caused by the condition of the steps or by some other f a c t o r i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h i s testimony: "Q. Now, a f t e r you f e l l you went back up the s t a i r s ---you remember your testimony----to see i f there was any extraneous object on the s t a i r s t h a t would have caused you t o f a l l . A. Would you say t h a t again? I didn't hear that. "Q. Later i n the day a f t e r you f e l l you went u p s t a i r s t o see i f there was anything, any extraneous object on the s t a i r s . A. Yes, I did. ' Q . And you didn't find anything? A. I never found anything, no. I ' Although the stairway was described a s "slick" or 11 slippery'' i n p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint and i n her b r i e f , there i s no evidence t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s allegation. Neither p l a i n t i f f nor Joanne Rost t e s t i f i e d t h a t the staFrs were slippery. The foregoing f a c t s a r e what a r e contained i n the abbre- viated record on appeal. The t r i a l court granted defendant's motion f o r a directed verdict on the ground t h a t the evidence f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h the existence of a duty owing from M & L Realty Corporation t o plain- t i f f . Defendant a l s o urges t h a t the evidence f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p l a i n t i f f ' s f a l l was caused by the condition of the stairway, r a t h e r than from some other factor. The issue urged on appeal i s whether the d i s t r i c t , c o u r t erred i n granting a directed verdict. W e add t h a t i f the d i s t r i c t court was correct i n i t s conclusion, it i s immaterial what reasons were assigned therefor. Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v , Kruger, 93 Mont. 66, 72, 16 P.2d 1102, 1104. Here, the evidence simply f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t the condition of the stairway caused appellant's f a l l . Appellant did not blame the fal'l on the stairway; she t e s t i f i e d t h a t "I came back a couple of steps and got myself ready f o r m y descent. I grabbed the handrail and s t a r t e d off the f i r s t s t e p and f e l l . " On cross-examination she excluded the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the door a t the top of the s t a i r s , the lighting, o r the lack of a handrail on the l e f t side caused her t o f a l l . There was no evidence t h a t the steps were slippery. It i s fundmental t h a t the evidence must tend not only t o show the negligence alleged, but a l s o the causal connection between it and the injury. Jackson v. William Dingwall Co., 145 Mont. 127, 134, 399 P.2d 236, 240. Under the evidence i n this record the cause of the f a l l i s a matter of conjecture. The fact that l a t e r i n the day she checked the stairway to see i f she f e l l on some extraneous object demon- strates she does not know what caused her f a l l . Having reviewed the abbreviated record and the issues presented, we find no error. The judgment i s affirmed. ~ s s o c i a t s Justice Associate Justices.