Court Opinion

ID: 9720843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:42:51.437605+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.615761
License: Public Domain

*572Otis, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent. In my opinion plaintiff assumed the risk of the injury she received as a matter of law.
Her knowledge and understanding of both the dangerous condition which confronted her and the alternative route which was conveniently available to her are clearly established by plaintiffs own testimony.
On direct examination Mrs. Hansen testified as follows:
“Q. Now, can you tell us generally how high it was as to, say, the highest point of this bump that you refer to?
“A. Oh, about four inches.
* * * * *
“Q. Now, as you approached that alleyway, did you observe the condition of the surface of that alleyway?
“A. Well, I noticed it was different. There was bumps and ridges.”
On cross-examination plaintiff gave the following testimony:
“Q. And you were able to see what was up there, at least what was up there on the alley, particularly in the area where you eventually fell?
“A. No, I didn’t notice it.
“Q. You didn’t notice anything there?
“A. I noticed it when I got up to the alley. I noticed it looked differently than the rest of it.
* * * * *
“Q. Did you ever describe the area as being about three feet in diameter?
“A. Where I fell?
“Q. No. The area of the bumpy ice.
“A. Well, it was a big size.
“Q. And the balance of the sidewalk alley was smooth, was it not?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And that was the area over which other people were walking?
“A. Yes, people were coming and going both ways.
*573“Q. As you started across the alley you were able to observe that this bumpy area was ahead of you?
“A. I noticed it, but I tried to be careful.
“Q. And you realized that it was bumpy ice?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And that you were in danger of falling or tripping?
“A. I seen others made it, so I thought I would, too.
* * * * *
“Q. And you appreciate that this particular bumpy area was something that was a hazard to walk across?
“A. Well, the whole alley was, as far as that was concerned.
“Q. But wasn’t the rest of the alley smooth?
“A. Yes, in front it was, yes.
“Q. That means the part near the street?
“A. Near the curb, yes. I wasn’t on that side.
“Q. So, as T take it, then, as you walked up near the edge of the alley you could see that this bumpy area was immediately ahead of you?
“A. Yes, as I came from the alley.
“Q. Nothing to prevent you from seeing it?
“A. Well, it’s different from the rest of it.
“Q. And if you walked over a little bit to the left where the street was, there was no bumpy area?
“A. No, but there was people there.
“Q. There was no bumpy area?
“A. No.
“Q. And that was where the people were crossing?
“A. Yes.
* * * * *
“Q. Exactly where it was, but it was somewhere back before you started across the alley that you observed this bumpy condition about three feet in diameter?
“A. No, I didn’t notice that bump that I fell on.
“Q. Did you in July of 1958 say that you did observe it?
*574“A. I noticed the alley was different, had bumps in it, but I didn’t notice that one bump until I fell.
* * * * *
“Q. Now, as you approached and saw this bumpy area ahead of you, did you turn to the right or left to avoid it?
“A. No, I just kept right on walking straight. There was people right on the far side of me so I couldn’t move over.
“Q. You could have waited, could you not?
“A. Well, I seen-others, go over it, so I thought I could make it, too.
* * * * *
“Q. The question I have then is, you could have waited?
“A. I suppose I could have.
“Q. Now, this bump was about four or five inches high?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And you could see it prior to the time you entered the alley?
“A. No, I didn’t see how high it was until I fell on it.
“Q. There was nothing to prevent you from turning to the right or left to go around it?
“A. Yes, there was. There was people next to me there. I couldn’t push them over.
* * * * *
“Q. You also realize that to the left of the area where you were walking was a safer route than the one you were taking?
“A. Well, there was so many people going down I couldn’t see under their feet too good, but as far as I could recollect, it was better.
“Q. You did realize that was safer?
“A. Yes.”
It is apparent that as she approached the alley Mrs. Hansen observed an area approximately 3 feet in diameter containing bumps and ridges. She testified that before crossing the dangerous section she observed a smooth area of sidewalk near the curb. However, she elected not to cross the alley by the safer route because other people were at that particular moment occupying the space.
In the leading Minnesota case on the subject, Wright v. City of St. Cloud, 54 Minn. 94, 55 N. W. 819, Mr. Justice Mitchell cogently *575established the rule governing assumption of risk in the use of icy sidewalks. We have consistently followed that decision and have recently cited it in Rudd v. Village of Bovey, 252 Minn. 151, 89 N. W. (2d) 689. In the Wright case the plaintiff was confronted with a sidewalk made hazardous by icy ridges, humps, and hollows, bult elected to traverse the dangerous area because, as she testified, she had no idea it was as bad as it was. This court found that plaintiff, by retracing her steps 100 feet and crossing the street, could have avoided the accident, and held that she had assumed the risk as a matter of law. In his opinion Mr. Justice Mitchell stated (54 Minn. 98, 55 N. W. 820):
“But in the present case, while plaintiff might not have known of the existence or location of any particular hollow or hole in this path, it is very clear from her own testimony that she had full and present knowledge of the precise condition of this part of the sidewalk, and of the risk incident to traveling over it. The only risk was that of slipping and falling, and that was perfectly patent to any one of ordinary intelligence. She simply overestimated her own ability to- travel across it without falling. There was no necessity of her going over the defect, but she could have easily, and without appreciable inconvenience, avoided it, by going across to the other side of the street, where the walk was perfectly safe. Under such circumstances she was not in the exercise of reasonable care, but must be presumed to have taken her chances, and having done so, and an injury having resulted, she cannot recover from the city. No different rule as to contributory negligence, or assumption of risks, whichever it is called, is to be applied from that which would be applied to any other case; and, if the plaintiff had exercised half as much care for her own safety as she exacts from the city for the safety of travelers, the accident would never have occurred.” (Italics supplied.)
I believe the Wright case is on all fours with the instant case. Mrs. Hansen by her own testimony observed the bumps and ridges before crossing the alley, was aware of an alternative route available to her “without appreciable inconvenience” by moving toward the curb a few feet, but she chose to take a chance and was injured because she over*576estimated her ability to negotiate a dangerous area. In a recent case, Donald v. Moses, 254 Minn. 186, 192, 94 N. W. (2d) 255, 260, we stated the prerequisites for the application of this defense thus:
“* * * that the assumption must be free and voluntary; that the risk is not assumed where the conduct of the defendant has left the plaintiff no reasonable alternative; and that, if a plaintiff with full knowledge of the dangerous condition of a sidewalk, because of icy conditions, voluntarily attempts to walk on it, he is not deemed to assume the risk of injury unless the defendant proves the reasonable availability of a safer route of travel.”
In the instant case the only possible issue is whether the plaintiff had full knowledge of the dangerous condition. In my opinion, Mr. Justice Mitchell disposed of this question when he stated that it is enough that plaintiff have knowledge of the precise condition of the part of the sidewalk where the accident occurred without the necessity of her knowing of the existence and location of any particular hollow or hole.
Although Mrs. Hansen testified that she didn’t notice the particular bump which caused her fall, she was fully aware of the rough and bumpy condition of the entire area she was about to cross. She “tried to be careful” and “thought” she “could make it.” Following the reasoning of Mr. Justice Mitchell I do not believe we should adopt a rule that plaintiff is barred only if she apprehended the precise irregularity which caused her fall and consciously took its measure before embarking upon her hazardous undertaking.
I would reverse.
Mr. Justice Rogosheske, not having been a member of the court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.