City of Drumright v. Moore
| Decision Date | 25 June 1946 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 32289 |
| Citation | 197 Okla. 306,170 P.2d 230,1946 OK 203 |
| Parties | CITY OF DRUMRIGHT v. MOORE |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 NEGLIGENCE - Nonliabllity of owner of premises for injuries to invitee arising from dangers that are obvious.
The duty of an owner or occupant of premises to keep them safe for invitees extends only to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, such as are not known to the invitee, and would not be observed by him in the exercise of ordinary care.
Appeal from District Court, Creek County; C.O. Beaver, Judge.
Action by Ben L. Moore against the City of Drumright. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Chas. E. Webster, of Drumright, and Wallace & Collins, of Sapulpa, for plaintiff in error.
Glenn O. Young, of Sapulpa, for defendant in error.
¶1 Plaintiff, Moore, sued the defendant city for damages for personal injuries. The trial court overruled defendant's demurrer to the evidence and motion for directed verdict and submitted the case to a jury, which returned a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
¶2 The sole contention made by the defendant in this court is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict for plaintiff.
¶3 The evidence is undisputed. Plaintiff was employed by the city as a street sweeper and was required to report for work at the city fire station, in which were also housed some of the city offices.
¶4 There were two entrances to the building, and the entrance used by the plaintiff on the particular occasion of his injury was through double doors at the front of the station. These double doors were located on the ground floor of the station, and were used for the passage of the fire trucks housed in the station, and for other vehicles entering the station. These doors, when closed, rested against a wooden stop some two inches wide and one inch high, which projected above the concrete floor in the center of the doorway just inside the property line of the building. From the evidence it appears that these doors were commonly used by a great many people having business with the city offices housed in the building.
¶5 Plaintiff testified that he had used the entrance to the fire station some 20 or more times, but that he had never observed the stop in the doorway and was not aware of its existence prior to his injury; that on the day he was injured he was required to report to work at the fire station at 1:30 in the morning, at which time one of the city trucks was supposed to pick up him and his fellow workers and transport them to the place where they were to work; that they waited at the office of the chief of police in the rear of the building, and that while walking to the front of the building, apparently to see if the truck had arrived, he turned around to see what time it was (evidently to look at a clock which hung in the back of the fire station); that just as he turned around someone yelled: "Look out back there, Ben, here comes a car"; that he made a quick move to the right and caught the sole of his shoe on the doorstop and fell.
¶6 Defendant's evidence shows that the fire station was well lighted; that the doorstop had been used for nearly 25 years, and that no one had ever been injured by tripping and falling over it prior to the injury sustained by plaintiff.
¶7 The city contends that the evidence above stated is wholly insufficient to show any negligence on its part; that the injury sustained by plaintiff was due entirely to his own carelessness, and that the defect in its building, if the wooden doorstop could be called a defect, was so slight that no careful or prudent person would have reasonably anticipated any danger from it. The city cites numerous cases, such as Hale v. City of Cushing, 191 Okla. 137, 127 P.2d 818; City of Bristow v. Pinkley, 158 Okla. 104, 12 P.2d 229, and Smith v. City of Tulsa, 172 Okla. 515, 45 P.2d 689, holding that where a defect in a sidewalk is so slight that no prudent person would reasonably anticipate any danger from its existence, the city is not liable for an injury sustained by reason thereof. The city also relies upon City of Tulsa v. Harman, 148 Okla. 117, 299 P. 462, which holds that an invitee assumes all normal or ordinary risks when he goes upon the premises of another; that the owner or occupant of said premises is under no legal duty to reconstruct or alter the premises so as to obviate known and obvious dangers, and that the occupant or owner is not liable to an invitee for any injury resulting from danger which is obvious, or which should have been observed by the invitee in the exercise of ordinary care.
¶8 Plaintiff calls attention to City of Tulsa v. Lewis, 189 Okla. 470, 117 P.2d 784, and other cases relating to defects in sidewalks or public ways, and holding that the particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Okla. City
...1964 OK 152, ¶¶ 21–22, 396 P.2d 1000, 1004–05 ; Jackson, 1964 OK 102, ¶ 0, 391 P.2d 904 (Syllabus by the Court, No. 3) ; City of Drumright v. Moore, 1946 OK 203, ¶¶ 9–14, 197 Okla. 306, 170 P.2d 230, 233.¶ 6 This Court has refused to limit the open-and-obvious doctrine whenever it has come ......
-
Safeway Stores, Inc. v. McCoy
...in the exercise of ordinary care.' We think that this case is governed by the principles enunciated by this court in City of Drumright v. Moore, 197 Okl. 306, 170 P.2d 230. In that case, plaintiff fell over a wooden doorstop in the doorway. The court '* * * Here the door stop was a part of ......
-
Henryetta Const. Co. v. Harris, 40348
...hidden dangers had been violated. Defendant invites attention to City of Tulsa v. Harmon, 148 Okl. 117, 299 P. 462; City of Drumright v. Moore, 197 Okl. 306, 170 P.2d 230; Skelton v. Sinclair Refining Company, Okl., 375 P.2d 948; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. McCoy, Okl., 376 P.2d 285; Hull v. Ne......
-
Rogers v. Cato Oil & Grease Co.
...See City of Tulsa v. Harman, 148 Okl. 117, 299 P.2d 462; S. L. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gilbert, 185 Okl. 591, 95 P.2d 123; City of Drumright v. Moore, 197 Okl. 306, 170 P.2d 230; and Magnolia Pet. Co. v. Barnes, 198 Okl. 406, 179 P.2d 132. In City of Drumright, supra, we 'In Long Construction Co......