Albachten v. The Golden Rule
| Decision Date | 19 January 1917 |
| Docket Number | 20,074 - (204) |
| Citation | 160 N.W. 1012,135 Minn. 381 |
| Parties | ANNA ALBACHTEN v. THE GOLDEN RULE |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $4,500 for personal injury received in the department store of defendant corporation. The answer alleged that if plaintiff sustained any injury it was caused by her own negligence and failure to observe her surroundings. The case was tried before Michael J., who directed a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying her motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Negligence of shopkeeper -- step between intersecting hallways.
1. Intersecting hallways in defendant's place of business to which it invited the public to enter for the purposes of trade, were upon different floor levels; one hallway leading from another at right angles was upon a level three or four inches higher, and there was a four-inch step at the point of intersection. It is held that the presence of this step was not, standing alone, sufficient to charge defendant with negligence in the condition of its premises, nor to require the submission of the question to the jury.
Negligence of shopkeeper -- proof of negligence.
2. Negligence is not presumed, and, if the step created a dangerous situation by reason of the absence of adequate light, the burden was upon plaintiff to produce evidence that the hallways were unlighted.
Douglas, Kennedy & Kennedy, for appellant.
McLaughlin & McLaughlin and J. F. Cowern, for respondent.
Defendant operates a department store in the city of St. Paul, and among other activities conducts and maintains a ladies' hair dressing department in connection therewith. The waiting or reception room of this department, located upon the second floor of the building, is connected by hallways with small working rooms, and the two hallways here involved intersect at right angles. The hallway leading from the reception room is upon the same floor level, but the intersecting hallway is upon a level three inches higher, and immediately at the intersection there is a step of that height. Plaintiff visited defendant's place of business for the purpose of having her hair dressed at the department mentioned. In going from the waiting room to the room where the desired service was to be rendered, she was required to pass down the hallways referred to, and as she turned to enter the intersecting hall her foot came in contact with the step at the entrance thereof, causing her to stumble and fall to the floor, from which she received the injuries of which she complains. She brought this action to recover therefor, predicating the same upon the alleged negligence of defendant in maintaining a dangerous step at the point in question, and in its failure to advise and warn plaintiff of its presence. The court below at the conclusion of the trial, directed a verdict for defendant upon the ground that the evidence failed to establish the allegations of negligence made the basis of the action, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial.
The general rule that a shopkeeper is under legal obligation to keep and maintain his premises in reasonably safe condition for...
To continue reading
Request your trial