No. 12121 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

MARGARET LAURIE, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

M & L REALTY CORPORATION, 

Defendant and Respondent, 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

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 : 
Mr. Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court 

of the thirteenth judicial district, Yellowstone'County, entered 

after the court directed a verdict in favor of defendant at the 

close of the case. 

Plaintiff, Margaret Laurie, brought action to recover 

damages for injuries sustained in a fall down a stairway. Plaintiff was an employee of Colborn School Supply, Inc. Defendant, 

M & L Realty Corporation owned the building in which Colborn 

operated its business. Colborn leased a portion of the building 

from defendant and occupied all of the main floor of the building, 

except one corner room which was used by the Bookmobile Service 

for the Billings Parmly Library. Colborn utilized its space on 

the main floor primarily for offices, freight receiving and ship- 

?ing, and a retail store it was developing. The second floor of 

the building was used by Colborn as a storage place for its 

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 first took possession under its lease 

was not shown. The only evidence relative to the condition of 

the stairway was plaintiff's own testimony and the testimony of 

Joanne Rost, an employee of Colborn, who began working about 

sixteen months before plaintiff fell on the stairs. Both witnesses 

testified that the stairs were old and steep, as well as 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 at the top and one lightbulb. A heavy metal door at the 

top of the stairs opened onto the landing. 

Plaintiff started working for Colborn about four months 

prior to the day she fell on the stairs. Her job as a clerk in 
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 regarding 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 at 

the top? A. Yes. 

"Q. As I understand it, you allowed the door to 

close? A. It had closed, yes, when I started down 

the stairs. 

"Q. The door had already closed behind you when you 

started down the stairs. A. Yes. 

"Q. And the door didn't bump you or anything when 

it closed. A. No. 11 

Lack of railing on left side. Plaintiff's testimony firmly 

established that the lack of a railing on the left side had nothing 

to do with her fall. She testified: 

"Q. As I understand it, with your right hand you 

grabbed onto the railing, is that right? A. I 

reached over for the right-hand railing, yes. 

"Q. And you actually got your hand onto the railing, 

didn't you? A. I had ahold of it. 

"Q. And, of course, the left hand had merchandise 

in it, didn't it? A. Right. II 

Illumination. Plaintiff admitted that the lighting conditions were not responsible for her accident. She testified with 

respect to the lighting: 

"Q. Now, where were you looking as you started 

down the stairs? A. Looking down towards my feet. 

"Q. And you could see your feet, couldn't you? 

A. Yes. 

I I Q. You could also see the stairs? A. Yes. 

"Q. It was light enough so you could see both your 

feet and the stairs. A. I did see them, yes. 

"Q. So that the lighting really didn't have much 

to do with your fall then, did it? A. Not in itself, 

no, sir. II 

know 

That plaintiff did notlwhether her fall was caused by the 

condition of the steps or by some other factor is illustrated by 

this testimony: 

"Q. Now, after you fell you went back up the stairs 

---you remember your testimony----to see if there was 

any extraneous object on the stairs that would have 

caused you to fall. A. Would you say that again? I 

didn't hear that. 
"Q. Later in the day after you fell you went 

upstairs to see if there was anything, any 

extraneous object on the stairs. A. Yes, I did. 

'Q. And you didn't find anything? A. I never 

found anything, no. I' 

Although the stairway was described as "slick" or 

11 slippery'' in plaintiff's complaint and in her brief, there is 

no evidence to establish this allegation. Neither plaintiff nor 

Joanne Rost testified that the staFrs were slippery. 

The foregoing facts are what are contained in the abbreviated record on appeal. 

The trial court granted defendant's motion for a directed 

verdict on the ground that the evidence failed to establish the 

existence of a duty owing from M & L Realty Corporation to plaintiff. Defendant also urges that the evidence failed to establish 

plaintiff's fall was caused by the condition of the stairway, 

rather than from some other factor. 

The issue urged on appeal is whether the district,court 

erred in granting a directed verdict. We add that if the district 

court was correct in its conclusion, it is 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 failed to establish that the 

condition of the stairway caused appellant's fall. Appellant did 

not blame the fal'l on the stairway; she testified that "I came 

back a couple of steps and got myself ready for my descent. I 

grabbed the handrail and started off the first step and fell." 

On cross-examination she excluded the possibility that the door 

at the top of the stairs, the lighting, or the lack of a handrail 

on the left side caused her to fall. There was no evidence that 

the steps were slippery. It is fundmental that the evidence must 

tend not only to show the negligence alleged, but also 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 in this record the cause of the fall is 

a matter of conjecture. The fact that later in the day she checked 

the stairway to see if she fell on some extraneous object demonstrates she does not know what caused her fall. 

Having reviewed the abbreviated record and the issues 

presented, we find no error. 

The judgment is affirmed. 

~ssociats Justice 

Associate Justices.