Court Opinion

ID: 9702910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:31:17.800535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:43.298756
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Beld:
I would affirm the judgment which was entered for defendant n. o. v. The majority opinion fails to state (1) that plaintiff fell in broad daylight, and (2) that plaintiff fell because the covering on the third step on the stairs was loose, and (3) that defendant had any actual or constructive notice of this defect which caused plaintiff’s accident and injuries, and (4) that plaintiff had used these stairs at least twice a week for over two years before the accident, and (5) that plaintiff gave no explanation of why he didn’t see the defect which the majority assert defendant should have seen and known for over a year.
What was the exact cause of this accident according to plaintiff himself? The majority opinion answers this question by stating that there was “an irregular hole in the center” of the third step and a loose piece of stripping on the landing which caused plaintiff’s fall. Let’s analyze the evidence. Plaintiff himself testified as. follows: “A. As I was walking up the steps, put my foot on the third step, the covering of the step slipped and the toe of my right foot caught on that covering and started my fall. As I did, I was in the process of putting my left foot up to the landing, and the linoleum covering there gave and the heel of my foot caught on *82it. I knew I was falling. I threw my bottles out. As I was falling, I tried to grab for a railing to stop my fall, but there was no railing there in the apartment, and then I fell on top of the glass.” Not one word that he stepped in the hole or that the hole caused him to fall. Plaintiff fell because the covering on the third step slipped — he said so himself. '
Plaintiff’s best witness to prove negligence of and' notice to defendant was Mrs. King who testified as follows: “Q. Now then, can you tell the Jury what was the condition of the rubber covering on the steps on the morning of June 25th? Not the landing but the rubber covering on the steps. A. It was worn, badly worn. Q. For how long before the morning of June 25, 1957, when Howard Green had his fall,, had- the steps been in such condition? A. A long tíirie. Q. W$ttkl you say as long as a month, several months, longer than that, shorter than that? A. A year or longer. Q. Now, with respect to this linoleum covering on the landing or fourth step,* on the morning that Mr. Green had his fall what was the condition of that linoleum covering? A. It was loose on the edge. . . . Q. What do you mean by worn? That it was worn down a little more than the other, it wasn’t quite as thick as the rest of it; is that right? A. It was worn off. Q. Could you see the step? A. Yes. Q. On the date of the accident you could see the step through that tread? A. Yes. . . . Q. Mrs. King, with reference to the area which you have circled on Plaintiff’s Exhibit 11 on the third step, how long before this accident was that area bare or worn through so that the wood showed? . . . Q. Over a year? A. Yes. ... Q. You knew there was a part worn through, that there was a hole in the tread; is that right? A. Yes. Q. You had noticed it in your travels up and down these steps; is that right? A. Yes. *83But it did not interfere in any way. I mean it was just flat and smooth.”*
I have never been able to understand why what is clearly seeable by a defendant is clearly unseeable by a plaintiff; I suppose they must wear different glasses.
It still is or ought to be the law (a) that a property owner is not an insurer, and (2) that a person in order to recover for injuries, cannot walk or drive blindly without using his eyesight and his other senses, and failure to observe what is plainly observable will bar recovery. There was ample evidence that the covering was worn and bare, but not a scintilla of evidence that prior to the accident the covering on the third step wEere~plaintiff fell was loosej contrariwise, if a defect be. assumed, it existed for over a year prior to tihe^accident and was clearly visible to everyone who 'used the stairs; ergo, plaintiff could and should have seen it. Each or both of these reasons bar recovery by plaintiff.
Mr. Justice Benjamin R. Jones joins in this dissenting opinion.

 The fourth step was the landing.

 Mrs. King’s daughter, Mrs. Bik (whose testimony on material points contradicted that of her mother), testified “the steps seemed safe enough.”