Brown v. Arthur Schuster, Inc.

• Citation: 300 Minn. 106,217 N.W.2d 850
• Decision Date: 10 May 1974
• Docket Number: No. 44271,44271
• Parties: Dorothy E. BROWN, Appellant, v. ARTHUR SCHUSTER, INC., et al., Respondents.
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

Page 850

217 N.W.2d 850

300 Minn. 106

Dorothy E. BROWN, Appellant, v. ARTHUR SCHUSTER, INC., et al., Respondents.

No. 44271.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 10, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

The applicable standard to determine the propriety of an order for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is whether there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict. A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict admits every inference reasonably to be drawn from the evidence as well as the credibility of the testimony for the adverse party. Therefore, where there is evidence that the plaintiff was injured by tripping on defective carpeting that 'bunched,' we must conclude that there is sufficient competent evidence to allow the jury to infer that the carpeting was installed negligently by defendants.

MacIntosh, Cairns & Commers and Ronald M. Michaelson, Minneapolis, for appellant.

Cousineau, McGuire, Shaughnessy & Anderson, and H. A. Cousineau, Jr., Minneapolis, for respondents.

Heard before PETERSON, TODD, and SCOTT, JJ., and considered and decided by the court.

SCOTT, Justice.DP This is an action to recover damages for a knee injury sustained by plaintiff, Dorothy E. Brown, as a result of an accident occurring on October 2, 1968, at the plaintiff's place of employment. Plaintiff's employer was not made a party to the action. She alleged that she had stumbled and injured her knee because defendants, Arthur Schuster, Inc., and Floor Covering Service Co., had installed carpeting in a negligent manner. A special verdict was returned by the jury finding that the defendants were 100-percent negligent in the installation of the carpeting, that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent, and that the defendants' negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Damages were assessed in the amount of $18,000. The trial court issued an order granting judgment for defendants notwithstanding the verdict and granting a new trial if the order granting judgment n.o.v. is vacated, set aside, or reversed. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered in favor of defendants. We reverse and order judgment on the verdict.

Plaintiff commenced employment for Terrace Estates Nursing Home in February 1967 and functioned as an assistant to Mr. Phillip Cormican, who acted as the administrator for the nursing home until December 31, 1968. Plaintiff's employment terminated on January 4, 1969. Defendant Arthur Schuster, Inc., had contracted, among other things, to furnish and arrange for installation of carpeting in the nursing home. The subcontractor hired to complete the actual installation was defendant Floor Covering Service Co. The entire dispute revolves around the carpeting installed in Cormican's new office.

Plaintiff testified that she had worked for the nursing home for approximately 20 months before the accident. She claimed that the accident occurred as she was walking near Cormican's desk and that her foot slid when the carpet 'gave way' beneath it. The carpet bunched beneath her, and although she did not fall, her left knee was twisted when her heel caught the carpeting. Her testimony was qualified by statements that it 'seemed' as though the carpet had slipped and that it 'seemed' as though her heel had caught on something. Plaintiff was wearing narrow-heeled shoes at the time of the accident.

She further testified that she first became aware of the defective condition of the carpet when Cormican moved into his new office, which she thought had occurred early in 1968. Cormican stated that the move might have been in 1967, but later equivocated by stating that it might have occurred during 1968. Plaintiff testified that she had experienced no difficulty in traversing the carpet in Cormican's office prior to the accident.

Cormican evidenced some uncertainty as to the date the carpeting was laid. He conceded that, although he had noticed no particular problems with it, he did remember that the carpet around his desk area was rumpled. Also, he recalled that defendants returned several times after the carpets were laid to repair and restretch them. He testified also that although he presumed they had worked in his office, he could not recall any specific restretching done to that particular carpeting.

Two additional witnesses testified that although the carpet was loose, wavy, and buckling during the summer of 1968, neither had experienced any difficulty in walking across the carpeted floor.

Monroe Kronick, president of defendant Floor Covering, stated that his business records indicated that the particular carpeting was installed in March 1967. He described the general method of installation and stated that stretching is done to prevent loose carpeting. Further, he said that the company guarantees 'the maintenance of the carpet as far as installation is concerned * * * any installation imperfections that show up within one year, we'll take care of * * * we have it set up as one time or one year.' He was unable to recall whether Schuster informed him of any complaints regarding Cormican's carpet, but did remember that it had been necessary to restretch other areas of carpeting throughout the nursing home. Kronick also testified to various temperature and use conditions which may necessitate restretching.

Another witness recalled a conversation in July 1968 in which Mr. Cormican allegedly asked Schuster, 'When are you going to get the carpeting in my office...