Court Opinion

ID: 9732237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:12:29.171136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:14.497369
License: Public Domain

Mtjrphy, Justice
(dissenting).
I cannot agree with the majority opinion for the reason that I do not believe the record supports the holding in favor of the defendant on the assumption that the modeling stand which caused plaintiff’s injuries might have been placed in the aisle by a customer or some other person.
This conclusion which seems to be based upon unwarranted assumptions and inferences is not realistic in view of the nature of the work carried on at the particular premises involved. Nor is it supported by the numerous authorities cited in 13 Dunnell, Dig. (3 ed.) § 6987, which hold the storekeeper is required to exercise reasonable care in maintaining safe conditions for his customers against hazards which might reasonably be anticipated in the normal course of events and which might result in injuries to customers absorbed in the inspection or examination of merchandise which they are purchasing. Where reasonable men may differ as to what constitutes ordinary care, that issue should be determined by the jury.
In Schrader v. Kriesel, 232 Minn. 238, 45 N. W. (2d) 395, this court took the position that there is a broad liability imposed upon the proprietor to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition. In that case, the plaintiff was injured by a fall after catching her foot in a rut on a secondhand auto lot maintained by the defendant. In view of the season and the purpose for which the lot was used *261it could be assumed that ruts and unevenness could naturally be expected in a lot occupying two-thirds of a city block. The broad holding of liability in that case indicated that proprietor was charged with notice of the particular conditions existing at the time and place even though the record supported the conclusion that the dangerous condition was contributed to by the weather and the known use to which the property was put. This decision was probably an extension of our holding in Ober v. The Golden Rule, 146 Minn. 347, 178 N. W. 586, where the facts are not greatly dissimilar to those here. While the most recent case of Messner v. Red Owl Stores, Inc. 238 Minn. 411, 57 N. W. (2d) 659, might at first blush appear to narrow the import of the holding in the Kriesel case, it is readily distinguishable because it had to do with an injury caused to a customer who stepped on a banana peel, an object not used as a utility in the conduct of the storekeeper’s business. We held there was no evidence that the storekeeper knew or should have known of its presence on the premises.
In the recent case of White v. Herpolsheimer Co. 327 Mich. 462, 42 N. W. (2d) 240, 26 A. L. R. (2d) 667, the facts showed that the plaintiff fell over the base portion of a swing which projected into an aisle of the defendant’s store. The following excerpt from that opinion needs no amplification (327 Mich. 469, 42 N. W. [2d] 243, 26 A. L. R. [2d] 672):
“* -x- «• Defendant’s claim that it had no notice of such situation, if it existed, is not tenable. It is in effect based on the assumption that a third party, without the knowledge of defendant’s employees and without reasonable opportunity on their part to become aware of the altered situation, had moved the swing in such manner as to cause the extension into the aisle. There is nothing in this record to justify such an assumption or inference. The jury was entitled to conclude from the evidence that the swing at the time of the accident was in the position m which defendant’s employees had placed it. Knowledge of the condition so created was chargeable to defendant. Wine v. Newcomb, Endicott & Co., 203 Mich. 445 [169 N. W. *262832]; Hulett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., supra.” (Italics supplied.)
There are cases from other jurisdictions supporting this view. Grzboski v. Bernheimer-Leader Stores, 156 Md. 146, 143 A. 706. Annotation, 26 A. L. R. (2d) 680, cites the Louisiana case of Vogts v. Schwegmann (La. App.) 56 So. (2d) 177, where it was held that the proprietor of a supermarket had “constructive notice” of a beer box projecting into the passageway. See, also, Ralph v. MacMarr Stores, 103 Mont. 421, 62 P. (2d) 1285.
The majority opinion places emphasis upon Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Peterson (8 Cir.) 76 F. (2d) 243. Although this is a pre Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins (304 U. S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L. ed. 1188) case, the majority appears willing to accept its principles as a basis for discussion of liability. They state that the facts here meet the first four of the five requirements for liability as indicated in that opinion but hold that this case must fail because it does not meet with the fifth condition which recites that (76 F. [2d] 246) “only employees of defendant unwrapped and removed the twine from these trees.” By the same token, it may be said here that only employees of the defendant in this case used the modeling stand over which the plaintiff fell. The logical inference is that the modeling stand, an adjunct of the proprietor’s business, was found where it was placed by his employees. It would seem more reasonable to assume that customers including children would be responsible for the loose twine in a busy department store than it would be to assume that some interloper in a ladies’ dress shop mysteriously removed a utility necessary to the work carried on by the employees. Moreover, there is no evidence in the record as to the presence of other customers on the premises.
It seems to me that the basic fault here lies in the storekeeper’s breach of duty in permitting a piece of his equipment to be in a place where it created a hazard. This stand was owned and controlled by the storekeeper and used in the conduct of its business. It should not be confused with a banana peel or other object which might find its way upon the premises through unexplained conduct *263of others thereby creating a hazardous condition which the owner could not anticipate or guard against. Certainly, if a shears had been left in a dangerous place, or a dolly platform commonly used in moving boxed merchandise had been found in the hallway, as a result of which customers absorbed in their purchases might be injured, it would not be reasonable to assume that such dangerous instrumentalities were brought upon the premises by strangers or customers. We are not concerned here with an object which is foreign to or unrelated to the conduct of the enterprise conducted on the premises. The assumption indulged in by the majority is not valid as to a utility which the storekeeper owns and uses in the conduct of the business he carries on.
Nor do I think the fact is controlling that the record contains the stipulation to the effect employees, if called to testify, would say they knew nothing of how the modeling stand found its way to the location in question. It seems to me the defendant was under some obligation to furnish affirmative evidence as to how its own utility was found in a hazardous location. In Westling v. Holm, 239 Minn. 191, 193, 58 N. W. (2d) 252, 254, we stated:
“* * * the evidence sustaining the hypothesis must preponderate as against other hypotheses, but need not exclude the latter by conclusive demonstrations of their impossibility. * * * It is the province of the jury to determine the weight of, and to choose between, conflicting inferences.”
Since the circumstances here establish inferences that the offending object was a utility placed in a hazardous location by the defendant, it was a question of fact for the jury to decide.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.