Court Opinion

ID: 9694857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:57:23.904871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:42.277248
License: Public Domain

*889Lee, J.
(dissenting)
I think that the case of Daniel v. Jackson Infirmary, 173 Miss. 832, 163 So. 447, cited in the majority opinion, lays down the correct rule as to the degree of care which the owner of a building must exercise for the safety of his patrons. In that case, the woman slipped and fell on linoleum. Bnt the proof showed that such linoleum was in common use in stores, office buildings and other public buildings everywhere, and that it was installed, cleaned and polished in the usual and customary manner.
In the case here, the mirrored post was erected on the steps. The purpose was not one of necessity, but merely for ornamentation. There is no proof in this record that the erection of such a post on the steps of entrance into and exit from picture slums is usual or customary. It cannot be said from this record that there is any other picture show in the country which has a mirrored post almost in the middle of the steps which patrons must use in going into and out of the show.
Mauney v. Gulf Refining Co., 193 Miss. 421, 8 So. (2d) 249, 9 So. (2d) 780; Gulf Refining Co. v. Williams, 183 Miss. 723, 185 So. 234; Louisiana Oil Corp. v. Davis, 172 Miss. 126, 158 So. 792, and other cases cited in the majority opinion, do not require the owner to anticipate unusual or improbable results. Those cases do announce the rule, however, that the owner must anticipate such results as are reasonably foreseeable as probable consequences of his act. We are in complete agreement as to the correctness of these principles. The parting of the ways comes in the application of those principles to the particular facts of this case.
Appellee’s statement was that she left the show, and went around the post, which was at an angle to her. The place was then bright, but before she took two steps, it became dimmer. While she gave the answers appearing in the majority opinion, at another place in her testimony, she said: “A. I came on out, and I was coming on out- *890and taken one step, and looked down and seen my feet, and seen my body, then the step looked twice as large as it was, and I made another step and there is when I fell. ’ ’ She made a like explanation at least four other times, one of which was: “When I looked over to the post, I seen my feet and the steps, and the reflection of the steps in the mirror . . . and I was still looking down when I made the next step, and that is when I fell.” On the cause of her injury, this is hef proof:
“Q. What caused you to fall? A. Was that mirrored post and the artificial light”.
And again on cross-examination:
“Ql The first time you ever noticed those mirrors was that night? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. If you hadn’t noticed them, you wouldn’t have been confused? A. I wouldn’t have got hurt.”
To me, it seems clear that the jury was warranted in finding these facts: As appellee came out of the show, there was considerable brightness for an instant until her eyes could react. As she started descending the steps,' her attention was attracted by and to the mirror. She could see herself and the steps therein. She became confused from the reflection. She was still in motion. When she took the second step down, she fell on account of the confusion which she experienced by reason of the mirror.
The mirrored post was erected near the middle of the stairs, on the third step from the top, which stair, the appellant knew, would be used daily by large numbers of people.
Now, the descent of steps is an ordinary experience of life. It is necessary, however, in such operation, that a person so descending shall keep his attention on what he is doing. Otherwise, it can be hazardous.
It is a matter of common knowledge that the average person, on passing a mirror, will look in it. It is also a matter of common knowledge that the reflection of steps in such mirror, where such person is descending, produces great confusion to him. Consequently, when the appel*891lant erected this mirrored post on the steps, it knew, or ought to have known, that its patrons would look in the mirror, and would he greatly confused as they descended. Hence, it created a serious hazard for those whom it had invited into its building.
It is my view that the appellant, when it erected the mirrored post on the steps, ought reasonably to have foreseen that its patrons would likely have their attention attracted thereto, and distracted from the task of descending the steps, and that, on this account, falls and injuries would proximately result. To me, it was the equivalent of setting a trap for its patrons. I consider it almost a miracle that others had not been previously injured.
I do not agree with the reasoning of the majority that a similar situation would exist if the mirror had been placed on one of the side walls. In that event, the patron, in order to look in it, would necessarily be required to turn in that direction. It could hardly be assumed that a person, in his right mind, would look in a mirror, and at the same time, move sidewise at a right angle down a flight of steps. I do not see how such an analogy can circumvent liability on account of confusion from a mirrored post, situated almost immediately in front of the patron as he comes out of the show, there on the steps, which he must descend.
Sincerely believing that the evidence was sufficient to present an issue of negligence for determination by the' jury, and that the jury’s verdict should be upheld, I most respectfully dissent from the conclusion reached by the majority of the Court.
Roberds, J., joins in this dissent.