Court Opinion

ID: 9662120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:59:53.970112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:37.039084
License: Public Domain

Steinle, J.
{dissenting). I find that I am compelled to respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
The 30-x-30-inch wooden platform was elevated at the points where it met the public sidewalk and curb. The floor of the polling booth at the exit door was above the ground and the platform was erected to the height of the floor and up against the booth. For ordinary practical use it would seem that if the platform was not so erected some other type of elevated foot rest would have to be provided for ingress and egress.
The majority opinion holds that this platform is not a step but even if it were a step, it was not an integral part of the polling-booth building.
It seems clear to me that a platform used as here performs the function of a step, and that the step or steps of a building constitute an integral part thereof even though the same may not be physically attached to the building. When the polling booth was not required for polling purposes, it and the platform were always stored together by the city, and when again placed in use the platform was always again installed with the building to perform the function of a step for people entering or leaving the polling booth.
The Massachusetts court in the decisions of Commonwealth v. Blaisdell (1871), 107 Mass. 234, and Smith v. Adams (1910), 206 Mass. 513, 92 N. E. 760, has held that the steps of a building constitute an integral part thereof. Following is a quotation from the opinion in the latter case on this point (p. 515) :
*173‘We are of opinion that steps of a dwelling house or other building, after having been put in adjustment and located as these were and which are essential for its completion and convenient use, become a part of it, even where they can be removed without detaching them from the principal edifice.”
The photograph in evidence shows that the polling-booth building' rests upon blocks placed in the street. It appears that the blocks formed the building’s foundation. The record does not indicate whether the blocks were fastened to the building. Assuming that they were not physically attached, it would nevertheless seem, that forming the actual foundation, they would be an integral part of the building. Without their presence the building could not stand properly. Without the presence of the platform serving as a step, movement in and out of the building would be difficult, and considering its use, the platform, like the blocks, although not fastened, must be deemed an integral part of the building.
As pointed out in the majority opinion, this court has repeatedly held that a private sidewalk adjacent to a public building does not constitute a.part thereof, but there would seem to be a clear distinction between steps leading into a building and a sidewalk, inasmuch as steps are usually considered part of a building while sidewalks are not.
The majority opinion states: “We find no authority in the statutes or in the precedents for requiring or permitting us to hold that a step or steps, immediately adjacent to but outside the building, is a part of a building.” Apparently such quoted statement is based upon the theory that anything outside of the exterior building line proper cannot constitute part of the building within the meaning of the safe-place statute. Followed to its logical conclusion this would exclude a porch as well as exterior steps, both of which are commonly considered to be part of the building proper. There is no logical justification for drawing such a line and I believe it *174to be much more consistent with the legislative purpose underlying the enactment of the safe-place statute to hold that any exterior part of a building, such as a porch, exterior platform, or steps, used as a means of ingress or egress constitutes part of the building for the purposes of the statute.
The judgments of the trial court should be affirmed.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Currie joins in this dissent.