Title: Fisher v. Findlay

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

319 Pa. Superior Ct. 214 (1983) 465 A.2d 1306 Jack E. FISHER and Constance Fisher, Husband/Wife, Appellants v. John R. FINDLAY and Helen Findlay, His Wife. Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Argued April 12, 1983. Filed September 23, 1983. Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied February 2, 1984. *215 Warren D. Utermahlen, Milford, for appellants. Lucille Marsh, Scranton, for appellees. Before HESTER, MONTEMURO and POPOVICH, JJ. HESTER, Judge: This is an appeal from the Order of February 11, 1982, in the Court of Common Pleas of Pike County, affirming the Order of May 22, 1979, granting a compulsory nonsuit. When reviewing the issue of whether a compulsory nonsuit should have been granted, Reviewing the evidence in accordance with the abovequoted law, the evidence adduced at trial is as follows: On June 27, 1975, at approximately 8:00 p.m., appellant Jack Fisher arrived at the appellees' residence while they were having dinner. He joined them at their table. Following his arrival, the parties sat down to dinner. Approximately five or ten minutes thereafter, husband/appellant requested to use the restroom. Appellant, being unfamiliar with the appellees' house, inquired of appellee for directions. Appellee, John Findlay, testified that he gave appellant the following directions: "I walked him to the living room and showed him where the hallway was and I told him the light switch was on his left." However, there are no light switches on the left side of the hallway. The testimony concerning what appellant would have encountered in following appellee's directions is as follows: Appellant, upon entering the hallway, proceeded to the first door on his left and opening it inward, tumbled down the stairway. He was found by appellees, lying unconscious, on the cellar floor. Due to the seriousness of his injuries, appellant was unable to testify at trial. *218 The cellar door and steps were described by appellee Findlay as follows: Appellant's expert, James F. Knash, a professional engineer, testified as follows regarding the appellees' cellar door and stairs: Based upon this evidence, we must determine whether the evidence warranted the granting of a nonsuit. Here, we are presented with the two issues that are normal in this type of case: (1) Did the evidence establish negligence on the part of the appellees? (2) Did it establish contributory negligence on the part of appellant? Regarding the first issue, since appellant was a social guest of the appellees, he qualified for those duties owed to a "gratuitous licensee." Davis v. McDowell National Bank, 407 Pa. 209, 180 A.2d 21 (1962). In Sharp v. Luksa, 440 Pa. 125, 269 A.2d 659 (1970), these duties were declared to be contained in Section 342 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. This section provides: In the present case, it is undisputed that appellant had no reason to know of the steep stairway that appellants' expert stated would be classified as a "ladder" in the engineering profession. Also, a juror, after reviewing the appellants' photographs, could reasonably conclude that the steps were indeed more in the form of a ladder rather than steps in a staircase. As to whether the stairway and door constituted an unreasonable risk of harm, appellants' expert testimony established that the door opened in the improper direction, and thus, appellant's own momentum carried him into the stairwell which resulted in appellant's fall. Further, the appellants' expert testimony classified the stairway as a ladder and not a stairway, and did not conform to the standards of engineering and architecture which apply to the construction, usage and design of cellar doorways and stairs. Further, it is undisputed that the appellees knew or should have known of this condition since the staircase had been constructed sometime prior to the occurrence and appellees had positioned a children's gate at the cellar door. Also, unlike the directions given to the plaintiff in Felix v. O'Brien, 413 Pa. 613, 199 A.2d 128 (1964), the directions in the present case were more specific, as appellee John Findlay stated: Here, the jury could conclude that these directions were sufficiently specific to mislead appellant, for appellee Findlay also testified that there were no light switches on the left side of the hallway, and the first door on the left was the cellar door. Unlike Felix v. O'Brien, supra, there is *223 sufficient evidence, based upon appellants' expert testimony and photographs, for the jury to conclude that the appellees would have had reason to believe that appellant would not have been able to discover the dangerous stairwell. We must now determine whether appellants are to be barred from recovery due to the contributory negligence of appellant Jack Fisher.[1] The lower court found him guilty of contributory negligence as the result of his entering a totally dark area (the stairwell). However, nothing appears of record to substantiate this finding. The only evidence as to the degree of light in the stairwell at the time of the accident is to the effect that it was still light out doors and that a large window filters light into the hallway. Thus, the jury could reasonably infer that the stairwell was semi-light or light. Therefore, appellant would not be contributory negligent as a matter of law. See Hoss v. Nestor Building & Loan Association, 164 Pa.Super. 77, 63 A.2d 435 (1949); Mogren v. Gadonas, 358 Pa. 507, 58 A.2d 150 (1948). However, we are of the opinion that it is a jury question whether the appellant had time to realize the lighted condition of the stairwell since appellants' expert testified that immediately upon pushing open the door, appellant's momentum would have propelled him into the stairwell. The question of appellant's contributory negligence is for jury resolution.[2] Reversed and remanded for a new trial. Jurisdiction is relinquished. [1] Since the instant cause of action arose prior to September 7, 1976, the effective date of the Comparative Negligence Act, the law of contributory negligence, rather than that of comparative negligence, is to be applied. See Costa v. Lair, 241 Pa.Super. 517, 363 A.2d 1313 (1976). [2] Regarding appellees' questioning of the propriety of this appeal, whereas the law favors the right to appeal where an appeal has otherwise been timely made in good faith before the wrong court, we hold that this appeal is proper for review. See Commonwealth v. Carter, 36 Pa.Cmwlth. 569, 575, 389 A.2d 241, 242 (1978).