Opinion ID: 2315538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was Mrs. Maher guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law?

Text: For our present purpose we shall assume actionable negligence on the part of the defendants. Certain aspects of that question will be examined later. The evidence touching the issue of contributory negligence may be summarized as follows: Two or three of the guests went to the dining room to get their coats. Miss Aiken opened the closet door, stepped in about two steps and leaned over and got [her] coat which was in the back on the right. Mrs. Maher went to the opening and saw her coat hanging just inside the door. She took her coat, put it on a chair in the dining room, and then volunteered to get Mrs. Morris' coat, Mrs. Morris being engaged in calling a taxicab for the use of herself and Mrs. Maher. Mrs. Maher's testimony as to what then happened is as follows: Well, immediately in front of the closet the first coat  well, it was the first coat on this side. There was a coat hanging that seemed to have black fur on it. I said to Mrs. Morris, `Does your coat have black fur on it?' She said `No. No, it's a plain gray coat.' I stepped further into the closet to go through the coats to see which was hers, and as I stepped further in  well, I just went headlong into void. She further testified that the space into which she fell was black. On cross-examination she further testified as follows: In addition to the lack of light, I believe that you testified there was very little light in the closet? Yes. Was your vision also obscured by coats hanging on both sides of that closet? Were there coats hanging on both sides of the closet? Yes. And because of the lack of light and the obscurity of your vision was it necessary for you to kind of push these coats out of the way and feel your way into the closet to feel for Mrs. Morris' coat? I pushed them aside and walked in further. Did you ever find out how far back in the closet Mary Morris' coat was? No, I didn't. Asked by the court whether she remembered how wide or how deep the platform is, she replied: No, I don't, sir. I just know that I took a few steps into it to get Mary's coat. There is no evidence of the exact length of the platform extending from the door to the top of the cellar stairs. Miss Aiken's two steps and Mrs. Maher's few steps were, as suggested by plaintiffs' counsel, probably short ones. The inference might be drawn that at least one or more of the coats had been hung in dangerous proximity to the end of the platform. On the motion for a directed verdict the court below applied the well-settled principle of law derived from the so-called step-in-the-dark cases. A person who comes into an unfamiliar situation, where a condition of darkness renders the use of his eyesight ineffective to define his surroundings, is not justified, in the absence of any special stress of circumstances, in proceeding further, without first finding out where he is going and what may be the obstructions to his safe progress. A violation of that rule is contributory negligence as a matter of law. 1 Shearman and Redfield on Negligence (Rev.Ed.) 320. The cases supporting this rule are in general those where a person enters a completely dark opening on unfamiliar premises. At all events that is the typical case which calls for a pronouncement by the trial court of contributory negligence as a matter of law. We do not question the soundness of the rule in such a case. The instant case, we think, is different. The opening was dimly lighted, sufficient to disclose that coats had been hung in it and sufficient to identify a coat hanging just inside the door. The rear of the supposed closet appears to have been completely dark. We think that a jury might reasonably find that the plaintiff, standing safely upon what appeared to be the floor of a closet, was misled by appearances, with some justification, into believing that it was safe to step further. The appearance of the opening, the hanging of the coats, the platform beneath her feet, and the dimness (but not complete absence) of light  all these facts taken together might well lead reasonable men to reject the conclusion that Mrs. Maher was careless of her own safety. As to the circumstance of partial illumination, the remarks of the Court of Appeals of Ohio in Carr v. Fox, 31 N.E.2d 713, 715, are pertinent. That case, like the present one, involved a dimly-lighted opening. The court declined to find contributory negligence as a matter of law. Refusing to apply the step-in-the-dark cases, the court said: These cases are inapplicable to the present situation, for the reason that the evidence shows that the area involved was neither dark nor light, but, on the contrary, due to the existence of some light, was dimly lighted. This presents one of the most trying situations for anyone whether on foot or driving a vehicle. Objects are presented in a distorted dimness, which may justify proceeding, but often obscures pitfalls which would be avoided if the light were stronger, or be avoided entirely if there was less light. This ground is not available as a justification for the action of the court. It is also true that it would be within the province of the jury to find that plaintiff, unable to see anything in the rear of the supposed closet, should have halted at the place where illumination ceased. In this case, in which opposite conclusions upon the issue might be drawn by reasonable men, we think that the court below erred in pronouncing Mrs. Maher's conduct negligent as a matter of law. We hold that under the circumstances of this case the issue of contributory negligence was one for the jury.