Case Name: HONORL v. J. L. HUDSON COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-04-02
Citations: 10 Mich. App. 623
Docket Number: Docket No. 1,538
Parties: HONORL v. J. L. HUDSON COMPANY.
Judges: McGregor, J., concurred with Fitzgerald, P. J.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 10
Pages: 623–636

Head Matter:
HONORL v. J. L. HUDSON COMPANY.
Opinion op the Court.
1. Appeal and Error — Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict — Evidence.
Pacts are reviewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff on review of a trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
2. Negligence — Storekeepers—Condition op Premises.
A storekeeper is under a duty to use reasonable care to provide reasonably safe premises for his customers.
3. Same — Storekeepers — Condition op Premises — Proximate Cause.
Actionable negligence on the part of a storekeeper requires a showing that he breached his duty to use reasonable care to provide a reasonably safe place for his customers, and that the breach proximately caused the injury of which complaint is made.
4. Same — Contributory Negligence — Evidence — Question por Jury.
Contributory negligence is a question for determination by the jury if the testimony presented is such that reasonable men might reaeh different conclusions.
References for Points in Headnotes
[I] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 886.
[2,10] 38 Am Jur, Negligence §§ 131, 136.
[3] 38 Am Jur, Negligence § 212 et seq.
[4-7,11] 38 Am Jur, Negligence § 356.
[8] 30A Am Jur, Judgments § 297 et seq.
[9] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 1009 et seq.
[12] 38 Am Jur, Negligence § 103.
5. Same — Contributory Negligence — Evidence.
Trial court’s finding that plaintiff department store customer was contributorily negligent as a matter of law, where plaintiff, in an attempt to avoid a crowd of Christmas shoppers blocking the right side of defendant store’s stairway, started down the left side, then crossed to right, failed to grasp the right handrail, and fell down the stairs, held, correct, since plaintiff was contributorily negligent by attempting descent of the temporarily blocked stairease.
6. Same — Contributory Negligence — Sele-Exposure to Danger.
A business invitee who knows or should have known of the existence of a condition whieh would be dangerous to business invitees is guilty of contributory negligence if he acts in disregard of that condition.
7. Same — Contributory Negligence — Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict.
Trial court’s granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict for defendant department storekeeper, where trial court found plaintiff customer contributorily negligent as a matter of law after jury found defendant negligent, held, correct, since court rule allows the trial court to submit case to the jury and then enter judgment notwithstanding verdict if it could determine as a matter of law that the moving party was entitled to a directed verdict on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence presented for reasonable minds to differ (GCR 1963, 515).
8. Trial — Questions oe Eact and Law — Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict.
Questions of faet become questions of law and are properly disposed of by judgment notwithstanding the verdiet by trial court if there is insufficient evidence presented for reasonable minds to differ; the fact that the jury may have reached a different conclusion does not mean that it acted correctly.
9. Oosts — Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.
No eosts were allowed on appeal by plaintiff from a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in an action by customer against a department storekeeper for injuries suffered in a fall down a stairway in defendant’s store where judgment for defendant was affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion.
Levin, J.
10. Negligence — Stores—Dangerous Condition of Premises — Notice to Storekeeper.
A storekeeper has a duty to keep his premises reasonably safe for use by the public, and, if a condition caused by others makes the premises unsafe, to correct that condition within a reasonable tiene after he learns or should have learned of the potential for harm.
11. Same — Contributory Negligence — Evidence—Jury Question.
Question whether plaintiff customer was contributorily negligent, where plaintiff, in an attempt to avoid a crowd of shoppers blocicing the right side of defendant department store’s stairway, started down the left side, then crossed to right, failed to grasp the right handrail, and fell down the stairs was for the jury to decide, since what constitutes due care for one’s own safety is a question of fact and not of law.
12. Same — Evidence—Question for Jury.
Question whether defendant department store should have anticipated the need to provide supervisors to control and direct crowds during Christmas shopping season, where plaintiff customer alleged a crowd blocked her access to handrail of defendant’s staircase, causing her to fall down the stairs, was for the jury to decide, since it concerns the application of the law’s standard of conduct to the particular facts of the case.
Appeal from "Wayne; Kaufman (Charles), J.
Submitted Division 1 June 6, 1967, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 1,538.)
Decided April 2, 1968.
Rehearing denied July 2, 1968.
Declaration by Rose Honorl against J. L. Hudson Company, a Michigan corporation, for personal injuries received in a fall in defendant’s store. Judgment for defendant notwithstanding verdict for plaintiff. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Posner é Posner, for plaintiff.
Alexander, Buchanan S Conklin (Robert J. Stowe, of counsel), for defendant.

Opinion:
Fitzgerald, P. J.
On December 8, 1959, plaintiff, a month short of her 67th birthday, was attempting to get from the first floor to the basement in defendant's store. The store was crowded with Christmas shoppers, and, as plaintiff approached the stairway, she observed a number of people standing in the area near the top of the stairs and blocking the right side of the approach to the stairway. In order to avoid the people, plaintiff started down the stairs on the left side of the stairway and then attempted to cross over to the right side. As she was reaching for the handrail on the right side, she lost her balance and fell, sustaining personal injuries.
•Evidence adduced at the trial showed that the elevators and escalators in defendant's store were running and that there were no supervisory employees directing crowds at the top of the stairs.
Plaintiff instituted a suit for damages in 1961 and the case was tried before a jury in November of 1965. Plaintiff was the only witness at the trial and was awarded $1,000 by the jury. The jury verdict was subsequently set aside by the trial court and judgment notwithstanding the verdict entered for defendant on the grounds that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which should have barred her relief.
Plaintiff now appeals to this Court seeking to set aside the judgment notwithstanding the verdict and restore the original judgment by the jury. We are asked to re-examine the record and determine the correctness of the trial court's finding that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence following the decision of the jury to the contrary. The record shows that the issue of contributory negligence was made a part of the charge of the trial court to the jury, and the jury chose to find that defendant was negligent while plaintiff was not.
Both parties concede that the facts must be reviewed by this Court in a light most favorable to plaintiff, as this is apparently the view taken by the jury. See Nash v. Lewis (1958), 352 Mich 488; also see Kroll v. Katz (1965), 374 Mich 364. We will agree with plaintiff that a storekeeper is under a duty to use reasonable care to provide reasonably safe premises for his customers. See Winfrey v. S. S. Kresge Company (1967), 6 Mich App 504. For plaintiff to recover from such a storekeeper for injuries suffered on his premises, plaintiff must also show that this dpty to use reasonable care was breached by the storekeeper and that the breach was the proximate cause of the injury. Winfrey v. S. S. Kresge Company, supra. Such breach might be occasioned if the storekeeper failed to have knowledge of a dangerous condition which has existed a sufficient length of time for him to be aware of it. Winfrey v. S. S. Kresge Company, supra. Plaintiff testified that she thought defendant often had supervisors at the top of the stairs on other occasions and she contends that defendant breached a duty of care to her at the time of her falling by not having a supervisor present during the obvious rush and crush of Christmas shopping. The jury considered the evidence and returned a verdict for plaintiff, holding, in effect, that defendant was negligent. The jury must consider the issue if reasonable men could honestly reach different conclusions from the facts of the case in determining the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. Uren v. Toth (1966), 5 Mich App 170; Kroll v. Katz, supra, following the holding in Sparks v. Luplow (1963), 372 Mich 198. In the present case, after the jury had returned its verdict, the trial court vacated it by granting defendant's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, stating that plaintiff was contributorily negligent.
Defendant contends that this procedure is proper in the present case as the facts do not permit reasonable men to differ as to the condition of the staircase being open on the left, clear and not slippery. We have re-examined the record and agree with the conclusion that plaintiff was negligent. We will dispose of the issue of plaintiff's contributory negligence by noting that the left side of the stairway was open, that elevators and escalators were running, and that plaintiff attempted to cross the top of the stairs to reach the right handrail because that is where "I always go". See Jones v. Michigan Racing Association (1956), 346 Mich 648, where the Court said:
"Similarly here, plaintiff is guilty of the same neglect he charges to defendant. If defendant was guüty of negligence in ignoring the existence of a condition of which it knew or should have known and which it should have foreseen would be dangerous to invitees, then plaintiff, who should have seen, as he did, and been aware, as he was, of its existence and have known, as he said he did, that it was dangerous, was equally guilty of contributory negligence for having ignored it and acting, as did plaintiff in Shorkey, in disregard of that danger."
The Court therein cited Shorkey v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1932), 259 Mich 450, as to duties of both parties in such a situation. Plaintiff's attempt to go about her normal way of descending the staircase when that staircase was temporarily blocked at the top by a crowd becomes a proximate cause of her injury. See Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. Marvin (1946), 313 Mich 528.
The remaining question is whether the trial court acted correctly in granting the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Defendant assumes that this action was proper without citing supporting authority, with the contention that since there clearly was contributory negligence, tbe court could properly overturn any verdict of the jury to tbe contrary. The issue is not that simple. Tbe trial court included a discussion of plaintiff's contributory negligence in tbe charge to tbe jury. Yet tbe jury did find tbe liability to be defendant's. Plaintiff cites to this Court tbe decisions in Kroll v. Katz, supra, and Uren v. Toth, supra, where tbe trier of fact must determine tbe question of contributory negligence where reasonable minds may differ. However, GCR 1963, 515 (originally tbe Empson act ) allows tbe court to submit tbe entire case to tbe jury with proper instructions and then enter judgment notwithstanding tbe verdict if it could determine as a matter of law that tbe moving party was entitled to a directed verdict on tbe ground that there was insufficient evidence presented for reasonable minds to differ. See GCR 1963, 515.2, and 2 Honigman & Iiawldns, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), judgment notwithstanding tbe verdict, pp 531, 532.
In accordance with tbe foregoing discussion of contributory negligence, we find that tbe trial court did not abuse its discretion in bolding that reasonable minds could not have differed as to plaintiff's contributory negligence in the present case. The question of fact becomes a question of law and is properly disposed of with the judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Tbe fact that tbe jury has reached a different conclusion does not mean that it was acting correctly.
Decision of tbe court in setting aside tbe verdict is affirmed, without costs.
McGregor, J., concurred with Fitzgerald, P. J.
CL 1948, § 691.691-691.693 (Stat Ann §27.1461-27.1463),