Court Opinion

ID: 9736122
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:44:32.214471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:04.503118
License: Public Domain

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH, dissenting: I dissent. The majority, although accurately stating the test to determine whether the plaintiff presented a jury question, has not correctly applied it to the evidence in this case. The transcript shows that plaintiff testified that, for a period of approximately two months prior to the occurrence, “the door would jam a lot of times and the door knob would not turn. It was just a bad door in my opinion.” He also testified: “As we got to the door I did not open the door. Like I say, Mr. Schneider opened the door, but it didn’t open like it normally should have ***.” On cross-examination he stated: “Mr. Schneider was right at the door. The door did not open.” “He bumped into the door and thereafter we got the door opened and walked out.” Mr. Schneider’s testimony did not conflict with plaintiff’s testimony, and, under the controlling cases, whether the defendant employer’s negligence played any part in causing plaintiff’s injury was a question of fact for the jury. I would reverse the judgment of the appellate court and reinstate the judgment entered on the jury verdict.