Court Opinion

ID: 9694243
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:31:28.376016+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:57.897542
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, J.
(dissenting). I am unable to concur with Mr. Justice Carr in reversal.
The facts in this case are not similar to those in Keech v. Clements, 303 Mich 69, or Lane v. B & J Theatres, Inc., 314 Mich 666, in which the presence of dangerous conditions were obscured or rendered difficult of discernment by defendants’ failure to furnish adequate lighting; nor like those in Nezworski v. Mazanec, 301 Mich 43, in which a dangerous condi*472tion was not only concealed in shadow or darkness, hut disguised by physical conditions presenting the false appearance of safety. Neither does Hulett v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 299 Mich 59, seem to me to be in point inasmuch as it did not involve, as does the instant case, the presence of an object or obstacle in plain view, but only plaintiff’s failure therein to observe a slippery floor condition which caused her to fall.
In the instant case plaintiff saw the upper part of the swing with its diagonal legs extending downward and outward at an angle to the floor. From that observation she must or should have known that the bottom of 1 of the legs extended out into the aisle directly in front of her. Had she permitted her gaze to travel down the swing’s leg to the floor, she would have observed its position in the aisle. Had she looked ahead of her to see where she was about to step, she would have seen the leg or brace of the swing before her.
In Goodman v. Theatre Parking, Inc., 286 Mich 80, this Court, in holding plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, said:
“Ordinary prudence demands that a view be taken of the place where one is about to step. Plaintiff failed to take such view and, even if defendant was negligent in permitting the cinder to remain upon the lot, plaintiff’s contributory negligence bars recovery.”
In Evans v. Orttenburger, 242 Mich 57, this Court held plaintiff therein guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law in stepping backward into an open stairway without looking to observe its presence.
In Neal v. Cities Service Oil Co., 306 Mich 605, plaintiff had passed and for some moments stood near, but failed to observe, an open trap door into *473which he fell as he stepped backwards. He was held to be guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.
Applicable here is what this Court said in Garrett v. W. S. Butterfield Theatres, Inc., 261 Mich 262, in which plaintiff failed to see and, in consequence, fell down a step leading from one floor level to another:
“The situation contained no element of a trap. A reasonably prudent person, watching where he was going, would have seen the step.”
Directly in point, it seems to me, is Laughton v. City of Detroit, 263 Mich 224, in which the plaintiff, in the nighttime, saw a sign and diagonal brace supporting it, erected in a public place, but failed to observe that the brace was attached to an angle iron which was fastened in the concrete and extended about 3 inches above it and was of the same color as the wet concrete, making it difficult to see. In going around the sign and brace he caught his toe on the angle iron and fell, sustaining injuries. In holding plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law this Court said:
“When the plaintiff saw the obstruction and the diagonal brace supporting it, he should have known that it was attached in some way to the concrete. It appears that the street at that point was well lighted. It was incumbent on him to use reasonable care in passing around the sign, and that we find he did not do.”
In view of these decisions, plaintiff’s failure to see what was plainly there to be seen, particularly after she had or should have been warned of its presence by her observation of part of the swing, rendered her guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, barring her right to recover.
*474The judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of defendant should be affirmed, with costs to defendant.
Reid and Btjtzel, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, J.