Title: Lee v. Shrader

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

502 So. 2d 741 (1987)
Mary Elizabeth LEE
v.
Otho SHRADER.
85-1143.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
January 30, 1987.
Gary W. Lackey, Scottsboro, for appellant.
John F. Porter III of Livingston, Porter & Paulk, Scottsboro, for appellee.
BEATTY, Justice.
This is an appeal by plaintiff, Mary Elizabeth Lee, from a judgment for the defendant, Otho Shrader, in plaintiff's action for damages based upon premises liability. We affirm.
Plaintiff's complaint named as defendants Shrader, and certain fictitiously named persons,[1] and alleged the following:
Allegations of proximately caused injuries followed. To these allegations, defendant Shrader pleaded the general issue and contributory negligence. After discovery, the cause was tried ore tenus to the trial court. The evidence disclosed that plaintiff sustained her fall when she slipped in water on the floor of defendant's greenhouse located on the porch of his home. It also showed that, as defendant's domestic employee, she knew it was common for water to be on the floor where plants were watered regularly. She had watered the plants there many times before and had herself spilled *742 water on the floor. The area was not dark and there was nothing to prevent plaintiff from seeing the water spot in question.
Following plaintiff's filing of post-trial motions, including a motion for a new trial, a hearing was held, after which the trial court made additional findings which were incorporated in a subsequent order:
On this appeal, plaintiff maintains that the trial court erred in the above-quoted finding. Plaintiff's argument is this: Plaintiff was defendant's employee, and thus her cause of action was based upon Code of 1975, § 25-6-1, the Employer's Liability Act, whose pertinent provisions are these:
Plaintiff contends that it was error for the trial court to find that plaintiff was contributorily negligent because of her knowledge of the dangerous condition.
Defendant, on the other hand, contends that plaintiff's claim under the Employer's Liability Act was not pleaded and, therefore, raised an issue here not raised at trial. Defendant also argues, alternatively, that the finding of contributory negligence was supported by the ore tenus evidence and is a complete defense under either common law premises liability or the Employer's Liability Act. We agree with that position.
Contributory negligence is a defense under § 25-6-1; Parham v. Taylor, 402 So. 2d 884 (Ala.1981); Johnson v. Johns Service Funeral Parlor, Inc., 240 Ala. 231, 198 So. 357 (1940), and questions of contributory negligence may rest upon facts or inferences from facts within the province of the factfinder to draw. Johnson, supra.
From an examination of the facts, this Court concludes that the trial court was correct. Although plaintiff did not remember watering the plants that day, and did not know whether she or defendant caused the water to be on the floor, it was inferable from the facts that she either caused the condition, knew of its presence, or could have apprised herself of it.
Under these circumstances, this Court cannot hold that the trial court erred in its finding of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Clardy v. Capital City Asphalt Co., 477 So. 2d 350 (Ala.1985).
Let the judgment be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, ALMON and HOUSTON, JJ., concur.
[1]  Plaintiff's complaint was never amended to substitute the true name for any defendant fictitiously named. See Rule 9(h), A.R.Civ.P. This opinion shall refer to Otho Shrader as "the defendant."