Opinion ID: 2161524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was There an Unsafe Condition?

Text: In Schlicht v. Thesing (1964), 25 Wis. (2d) 436, 441, 130 N. W. (2d) 763, this court stated: The owner of premises owes his invitee the alternative duty of either having his premises in a reasonably safe condition or of giving the invitee adequate and timley warning of latent and concealed perils which are known to the owner but not to the invitee. Can it be said that the premises were unsafe because of the smallness of the platform in the back hallway and the presence of an unshielded light? It is claimed that the deceased may  have become blinded by the 75- or 100-watt bulb which hung just above eye level over the second stair of the stairway leading to the basement. The appellant points to the fact that this light bulb was not covered by a reflector or any other means of shading and that this light may have blinded Mrs. Schoenfeldt. The absence of adequate lighting facilities has been held by this court to be the basis upon which negligence could be predicated. Schlicht v. Thesing, supra . It is more difficult to ascribe negligence to the presence of light. If this were not an ordinary light bulb but were, for example, a floodlight aimed directly at a person entering the door, negligence could reasonably be based upon a claim of a blinding effect. In Waterman v. Heinemann Brothers Co. (1938), 229 Wis. 209, 282 N. W. 29, the claim was made that the plaintiff was blinded by two 200-watt lights, and the court said, at page 212: Under the undisputed evidence as to the lighting of the stairhead we consider that the plaintiff's claim of being blinded by light is in conflict with the physical facts and is utterly incredible. Under the facts of the instant case, there is no credible evidence which would permit a finding that Mrs. Schoenfeldt was blinded by the light in question. This is true even though Mr. Schoenfeldt claimed that he was blinded by the light shortly after the accident. It does not follow that his wife had been so affected; the jury would have to speculate whether she was affected by the light in the same manner that her husband claimed to have been. See also Boyd v. Logan Jones Dry Goods Co. (1937), 340 Mo. 1100, 104 S. W. (2d) 348. The presence of this ordinary, unshaded 75- or 100-watt bulb mounted in the Babcocks' back hallway slightly above eye level did not, under the circumstances, constitute an  unsafe condition. This is particularly true because the evidence further establishes that there was an additional light at the bottom of the stairs. The trial court was correct in concluding that upon this record the stairs were in open and plain sight, and no credible evidence exists from which a reasonable inference of negligence could be drawn. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.