Boyle v. Preketes
| Decision Date | 04 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 49.,49. |
| Parties | BOYLE v. PREKETES et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washtenaw County; George W. Sample, Judge.
Action by Edith M. Boyle against Charles Preketes and others, doing business as Preketes Bros. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Burke & Burke, of Ann Arbor, for appellant.
Vandeveer & Vandeveer, of Detroit, for appellees.
The defendants conduct a candy store and restaurant in the city of Ann Arbor. Plaintiff, sixty-four years of age, with a lady companion entered defendants' place of business about noon on the 29th of August, 1931, for the purpose of securing their noonday lunch. The premises occupied by defendants' business consisted of what was formerly two store rooms of about equal width; the dividing partition having been removed. There was an entrance at the front of each store. Plaintiff and her companion entered at the more southerly door. Immediately at their right as they entered was a soda fountain and to their left a showcase extending along the dividing line between the two store rooms. At the rear of each room were booths equipped for serving defendants' customers. Approximately 30 feet from the entrance was a space left open between the showcase nearer the front and the booths at the rear as a passageway from one part of the store to the other. There was a difference in floor levels; the floor of the northerly portion being lower than the floor of the part through which plaintiff entered. In the passageway, which was 5 feet wide, a step was constructed of ample width and of a height which substantially divided in equal proportions the difference in the levels of the two floors. The riser of the lower step was 6 3/4 inches, and the other 5 3/8 inches. Plaintiff and her companion decided to go to the northerly portion of the restaurant, and, when doing so, plaintiff failed to see the steps, fell, and was rather severely injured. She brought this suit for damages, and at the conclusion of her proofs the circuit judge directed the jury to render a verdict in favor of the defendants. From the judgment entered on the verdict plaintiff has appealed.
It is appellant's claim that the record presented an issue of fact for determination of the jury both as to defendants' negligence and as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff. In reviewing the question presented, we must construe the testimony most favorably to appellant. The negligence charged to defendants is their failure to maintain sufficient notice or warnings to apprise their customers of the difference in the floor levels in the two portions of their premises; and the failure to maintain sufficient artificial lighting to properly illuminate the passageway and the steps; and also: ‘It became the further duty of the defendants not to maintain attractive show cases so displaying the wares and merchandise on sale by defendants in such a manner as to distract the attention of customers rightfully on the premises at the point where such premises became more dangerous by reason of steps and changes in floor levels.'
If defendants' premises were properly lighted, they were not required to post warnings of the steps between the two portions of their place of business. If the place was sufficiently lighted, the steps themselves constituted as effective notice to defendants' customers as it was possible to give.
Touching plaintiff's claim that her attention was distracted by the display of defendants' wares, it may be said that there was nothing unusual as to the manner or character of the display. We find nothing in this record which would justify the claim, at least made inferentially in behalf of appellant, that the display of the merchandise here kept for sale because of its attractive nature can be held to lessen the degree of care which plaintiff was required to exercise for her own safety.
Also construing the record most favorably to the appellant, there is no testimony which tends to sustain the allegation of the declaration that these steps constituted ‘concealed dangers.’ The undisputed testimony discloses that the floor was of inlaid tile with a pronounced border near the northerly side of the room where plaintiffs first entered and extending across the approach to the steps. In effect this border plainly marked what may be referred to as the upper step or tread. The edge of each tread is plainly marked by a dark strip of cork which is in decided contrast with the white tile used in the general construction of the balance of the treads and the floor. Neither the adjacent showcase at plaintiff's left nor the booths at her right in any way obstructed her range of vision. As she turned to her left towards the steps, she must have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Livings v. Sage's Inv. Grp., LLC
...rule that was traditionally used in Michigan. We reaffirmed it later that same year in another case involving steps, Boyle v. Preketes , 262 Mich. 629, 247 N.W. 763 (1933). It was only decades later, with the relatively recent decision in Placek v. Sterling Hts. , 405 Mich. 638, 275 N.W.2d ......
-
Supreme Instruments Corp. v. Lehr
...v. Franklin Simon & Co., 237 A.D. 42, 260 N.Y.S. 691; Dickson v. Emporium Mercantile Co., 193 Minn. 629, 259 N.W. 375; Boyle v. Preketes, 262 Mich. 629, 247 N.W. 763, 765. In the last named case the Court said: "It has since been recognized that falling downstairs, where the mishap was not ......
-
Farley v. Portland Gas & Coke Co.
...negligence on the part of defendant storekeeper, see also: Benton v. United Bank Building, 223 N.C. 809, 28 S.E.2d 491; Boyle v. Preketes, 262 Mich. 629, 247 N.W. 763; Cates v. Evans, Mo.App., 1940, 142 S.W.2d 654; Smith v. Mannings, Inc., 13 Wash.2d 573, 126 P.2d 44; Adriance v. Henry Dunc......
-
Nezworski v. Mazanec
...A. & P. Tea Co., 259 Mich. 450, 243 N.W. 257;Garrett v. [W. S.] Butterfield Theatres, Inc., 261 Mich. 262, 246 N.W. 57;Boyle v. Preketes, 262 Mich. 629, 247 N.W. 763;Grand Rapids Bedding Co. v. [Grand Rapids] Furniture Temple Co., 218 Mich. 486, 188 N.W. 538;Rice v. Goodspeed Real Estate Co......