Bonawitt v. Sister of Charity of St. Vincent's Hosp.

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
• Writing for the Court: RICHARDS
• Citation: 43 Ohio App. 347,182 N.E. 661
• Parties: BONAWITT v. SISTER OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL.
• Decision Date: 01 February 1932

43 Ohio App. 347
182 N.E. 661

BONAWITT
v.
SISTER OF CHARITY OF ST. VINCENT'S HOSPITAL.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County.

Feb. 1, 1932.

Action by Electa Bonawitt against the Sisters of Charity of St. Vincent's Hospital. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.-[By Editorial Staff.]

Affirmed.

[Ohio App. 347]

[182 N.E. 662]

G. C. Sheffler and Culbert & Culbert, all of Fremont, for plaintiff in error.

Taber, Chittenden & Daniells, of Toledo, for defendant in error.

RICHARDS, J.

In the court of common pleas of Lucas county Electa Bonawit brought an action to recover damages for personal injury resulting to her from slipping on a floor in St. Vincent's Hospital in the city of Toledo, Ohio. The trial resulted in a directed verdict and judgment for the defendant, to which the plaintiff prosecutes error.

A daughter of the plaintiff was a patient in the hospital, and the plaintiff went there to visit her in the forenoon of March 1, 1930. She walked up the steps to the second floor, and in walking along the upper floor slipped and fell, receiving serious injury. Her description of the way it occurred is simply this: ‘My feet slipped out from under me like lightning and I fell on my left side.’ She further testified that the cause of her fall was ‘wax or oil or something’ on the floor, and that it was very slippery and smooth. She further testified that the wax had been applied on the linoleum and that it was smooth and shiny and highly polished. She walked 12 or 15 feet along a corridor of the hospital much used by nurses, patients, and persons visiting the hospital and thus knew its condition. Evidence was introduced tending to show that a man, presumed to have been an employee, waxed and polished the floor a day or two before the plaintiff was injured. It does not appear from the bill of exceptions what kind of material was used in waxing and polishing the floor. In describing the floor, one witness testified that ‘it was the same sensation as when you walk on ice, as each step you took you would slide back just a little.’ No evidence was introduced tending to show any negligence in the method used, or in the manner of waxing or polishing the floor, or that any different material was used than is ordinarily used for such purposes. Nor was any evidence introduced tending to show that any greater or lesser quantity was applied than is ordinarily used for such purposes, nor that it was improper to wax or oil linoleum, nor that...