Cogswell v. C. C. Anderson Stores Co, 7383
Citation | 192 P.2d 383,68 Idaho 205 |
Decision Date | 01 April 1948 |
Docket Number | 7383 |
Parties | COGSWELL et ux. v. C. C. ANDERSON STORES CO |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Appeal from District Court, Eleventh Judicial District; Twin Falls County; James W. Porter, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Marshall Chapman and Lawrence B. Quinn, both of Twin Falls, for appellant.
No presumption of negligence arises from the mere fact that a customer sustains an injury while on the premises, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur not being applicable to such a case. Martin v. Brown, 56 Idaho 379, 54 P.2d 1157; Herrick v. Breier, 59 Idaho 171, 82 P.2d 90; Touhy v. Owl Drug Co., 6 Cal.App.2d 64, 44 P.2d 405; Shoemaker v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., D.C. 17 F.Supp. 591.
Mere proof of fact of occurrence of accident or injury does not shift burden of proof from respondents or create a presumption of negligence on part of appellant. Instead, the presumption was and is that appellant exercised due care for the protection of the respondent, Ella J. Cogswell, and that presumption of due care continues unless and until overcome by a preponderance of competent evidence adduced in said action. Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Peterson, 8 Cir., 76 F.2d 243; Campbell v. F. W. Woolworth & Co., 8 Cir., 117 F.2d 152; Montgomery Ward & Co. v Lamberson, 9 Cir., 144 F.2d 97.
The court committed reversible error in overruling appellant's objections to the inflammatory and objectionable statements of counsel for respondents in his argument to the jury, and court's refusal to instruct the jury to disregard such remarks. Stewart v. City of Idaho Falls, 61 Idaho 471, 103 P.2d 697; Goldstone v. Rustemeyer, 21 Idaho 703, 123 P. 635; Petajaniemi v. Washington Water Power Co., 22 Idaho 20, 124 P. 783; Watkins v. Mountains Co-op. Irrigation Co., 33 Idaho 623, 197 P. 247; Rasicot v. Royal Neighbors of America, 18 Idaho 85, 108 P. 1048, 29 L.R.A.,N.S., 433, 138 Am.St.Rep. 180.
Where passion and prejudice evidently entered into the jury's deliberations not only as to the amount of the verdict but as to contributing to its returning any verdict at all, the verdict is vitiated and the only constitutional protection is to grant a new trial. Luther v. First Bank of Troy, 64 Idaho 416, 133 P.2d 717; Neil v. Idaho & Washington N. R. R., 22 Idaho 74, 125 P. 331; Geist v. Moore, 58 Idaho 149, 70 P.2d 403; Olson v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 49 Wash. 626, 96 P. 150, 18 L.R.A.,N.S., 209; Puget Sound Lumber Co. v. Mechanics' & Traders' Ins. Co., 168 Wash. 46, 10 P.2d 568; Leek v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 65 Wash. 453, 118 P. 345.
Rayborn & Rayborn and Harry Povey, both of Twin Falls, for respondents.
Negligence of appellant in maintaining a dangerous and unsafe exit from its store was established by evidence and justified verdict and judgment and trial court properly overruled motions for nonsuit, directed verdict and for new trial. Hall v. Boise Payette Lumber Co., 63 Idaho 686, 125 P.2d 311; Tyler v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 181 Wash. 125, 41 P.2d 1093; Peters v. Schillig-Scott Lbr. Co., 107 Colo. 310, 111 P.2d 898; Restatement of the Law-Torts and Negligence, sec. 343; Emmons v. E. P. Charlton & Co., 63 Wash. 276, 115 P. 163; Roach v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co., 102 Cal.App. 380, 282 P. 967; Moore v. Marshall, 41 Cal.App.2d 490, 107 P.2d 89.
There was no misconduct of counsel during the trial. Judgments should never be reversed by reason of misconduct of counsel unless the appellate court is of the opinion that such misconduct had prevailing influence upon the jury to the detriment of appellant. Theriault v. California Ins. Co., 27 Idaho 476, 484, 149 P. 719, Ann.Cas.1917D, 818; Haverland v. Potlatch Lumber Co., 34 Idaho 237, 200 P. 129; Stewart v. City of Idaho Falls, 61 Idaho 471, 103 P.2d 697; Lightner v. Russell & Pugh Lumber Co., 52 Idaho 616, 17 P.2d 349; Watkins v. Mountain Home Co-op. Irr. Co., 33 Idaho 623, 638, 197 P. 247; Bates v. Price, 30 Idaho 521, 166 P. 261; De Lamater v. Little, 32 Idaho 358, 360, 182 P. 853.
This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by respondent Ella J. Cogswell, wife of respondent F. L. Cogswell, as the result of a fall at the exit of a store owned and operated by C. C. Anderson Stores Company (hereinafter called the Company), at Twin Falls, Idaho. The Company operated its store in a building leased by it from Lulu Herriott, the owner. At the beginning of the trial, on motion, Lulu Herriott, made a defendant in the action along with the Company, was dismissed, judgment of dismissal being later entered.
The action continued against the Company and was tried on the complaint of respondents, F. L. Cogswell and Ella J. Cogswell, and the answer thereto of the Company. The Company's answer denied all the material allegations of the complaint, and then and by further answer alleged that "Ella Cogswell's fall and injury, if any, sustained by her, was caused by her own negligence and carelessness, and by her failure to observe her surroundings."
The cause was tried by the court sitting with a jury. The jury returned a verdict against the Company for general and special damages in the sum of $ 13,165.60. From the judgment entered on the verdict the Company appeals to this court.
It appears from the record that about five o'clock in the evening of October 20, 1945, respondent Ella J. Cogswell entered one of appellant's Twin Falls stores to pick up some curtains purchased a few days before. The store has two entrances, one on Second Street West and the other on Second Avenue West. Respondent Ella J. Cogswell entered the store through the Second Street West entrance. After about ten to fifteen minutes, being unable to find a clerk, and noticing an exit on Second Avenue West, she decided to leave the store through that exit, and, while passing through the exit, fell, sustaining certain injuries, to recover damages for which this action is prosecuted. The exit consisted of "two little swinging [glass] doors", with a solid strip at the bottom ten inches in height. It was lighted. The glass extended down the door to within from ten to twelve inches of the bottom, the doors being practically flush with a six-inch step down. Where one was going out there was no guard rail or anything to hold onto or any sign or warning at or near the exit to call attention to the doors and the abrupt step down.
While the Company specifies twenty-two errors, it argues and cites cases in support of only five. We will discuss the latter in the order stated by appellant:
"(1) The insufficiency of the evidence to establish any negligence on the part of the appellant, C. C. Anderson Company, a corporation".
Respondent Ella J. Cogswell, insofar as material on the question of the insufficiency of the evidence, testified on direct examination:
On cross-examination, she testified:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Griffiths
...by an attorney in his argument to the jury, the court will not consider alleged error in this respect, Cogswell v. C. C. Anderson Stores Co., 68 Idaho 205, 192 P.2d 383, this is not necessarily true as to arguments of prosecuting attorneys in criminal cases. State v. Givens, 28 Idaho 253, 1......
-
Stowers v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...the jury. Hooton v. City of Burley, 70 Idaho 369, 219 P.2d 651; Ford v. Connell, 69 Idaho 183, 204 P.2d 1019; Cogswell v. C. C. Anderson Stores Co., 68 Idaho 205, 192 P.2d 383; O'Connor v. Meyer, 66 Idaho 15, 154 P.2d 174; Mason v. Hillsdale Highway Dist., 65 Idaho 833, 154 P.2d 490; Depart......
-
Van v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...negligence of Mrs. Van. Dunclick Inc. v. Utah-Idaho Concrete Pipe Co., 77 Idaho 499, 505, 295 P.2d 700; Cogswell v. C. C. Anderson Stores Co., 68 Idaho 205, 192 P.2d 383. Where different minds might draw different inferences or conclusions from the facts, whether controverted or not, the is......
-
Ineas v. Union Pac. R. Co.
...31 Idaho 644 at page 652, 175 P. 588; Shaddy v. Daley, 58 Idaho 536 at page 540, 76 P.2d 279. In Cogswell v. C. C. Anderson Stores Co., 68 Idaho 205 at page 221, 192 P.2d 383, there was, in effect, an adverse ruling and no immediate admonitory The third proposition of law is that the last c......