Chilberg v. Standard Furniture Co.

• Decision Date: 02 June 1911
• Citation: 115 P. 837,63 Wash. 414
• Parties: CHILBERG et al. v. STANDARD FURNITURE CO.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

115 P. 837

63 Wash. 414

CHILBERG et al. v. STANDARD FURNITURE CO.

Supreme Court of Washington

June 2, 1911

Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John F. Main Judge.

Action by Matilda C. Chilberg and her husband against the Standard Furniture Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed, with directions to dismiss.

Farrell Kane & Stratton and Richard Saxe Jones, for appellant.

Roberts Battle, Hulbert & Tennant, for respondents.

MORRIS J.

Appellant is the owner of a large furniture and carpet store at Seattle. On April 28, 1909, Mrs. Chilberg visited the store for the purpose of purchasing some carpet. She was conducted to the carpet department, and there various carpets were exhibited to her. The carpet department is in a large, well-lighted room, having a maple floor which is smooth and hard. The method of showing goods to an intending purchaser is to display them upon this hard floor, seeking to produce as near as possible the appearance of the carpet when laid. In exhibiting the carpets to Mrs. Chilberg, the clerk after rolling out two lengths from a large roll, and placing them side by side upon the floor, picked up a third and smaller piece, called a drummer's sample, 27 inches wide and from 3 to 6 feet long as described by different witnesses, and placed it alongside of the other carpet on the floor, to show how it matched. Mrs. Chilberg made her selection, and then asked to be shown some stair carpet, and was directed by the clerk to follow him to another section. She proceeded to do so and had gone about 10 feet when she slipped and fell, sustaining the injuries complained of. She says she slipped on this small piece of carpet because, after falling, she saw it at her feet, although she cannot say how it was removed from the floor where she last saw it. She thinks the clerk must have picked it up and dropped it there, although she did not see him do so. The clerk says he left it on the floor alongside of the other carpet, and at no time removed it from where he has first exhibited it. However this may be, we do not regard it as having any controlling effect upon the question submitted upon defendant's appeal from an adverse judgment.

The first question to be determined, giving full effect to Mrs Chilberg's testimony as to the manner of the accident, is, does it establish negligence? Negligence is a breach of duty which one person owes to another by reason of the relation existing between them, and the duty in each particular instance is to be tested by what the ordinarily prudent person would do in a like situation. It is shown to be customary for carpet...