Costacos v. Spence
| Decision Date | 21 November 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 39634,39634 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Gus COSTACOS, Appellant, v. Everett M. SPENCE and Jane Doe Spence, his wife, and the marital community composed thereof, dba Admiral Way Pharmacy, Respondents. |
Wolfstone, Panchot & Kleist, Leon L. Wolfstone, Seattle, for appellant.
Charles E. Wagg, Jr., Seattle, for respondents.
*
This is a 'slip and fall' case set in motion by events following a sharp earthquake which occurred in the Seattle area at approximately 8:30 a.m. on April 29, 1965. The appellant suffered the injuries complained of when he fell on the floor of respondents' store premises about two hours after the earthquake. He bases his claim on two theories of liability. The first is that respondents failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, or to give adequate warning of a dangerous condition. The second is that respondents were actively negligent in failing to make the premises safe after the earthquake. A jury trial resulted in a verdict and judgment thereon, favoring the respondents.
The shock of the earthquake had caused widespread damage in the area surrounding respondents' drugstore. Bricks had been loosened on the face of many buildings and had fallen on marquees and on the streets and sidewalks. Merchandise on store shelves had been catapulted to the floors with resulting breakage and spillage.
Respondents' store became a shambles, with littered aisles of broken bottles, oils, medicines and other drug supplies spilled on the floor. Mr. Everett M. Spence, his son, Robert Spence, who was employed in the store, another employee and a visiting drug salesman busied themselves as soon as possible in cleaning up the premises. They sorted the debris for salvage and swept it into piles for disposal. A side entrance was closed and barricaded. The main doorway was left open but there is a question as to whether or not the entry was blocked in any way.
The appellant entered the pharmacy shortly after 10:30 a.m., knowing that the earthquake had occurred. He was met near the front of the store by Robert Spence, who told him he would go back to the prescription counter and secure a prescription for him. There is a dispute in the testimony relative to whether or not Mr. Spence specifically warned the appellant of the condition of the premises. The sound of sweeping and shoveling was very audible to appellant, who walked straight ahead through the center aisle, while Spence went up the left aisle. Part way to the back counter, appellant fell and was injured. Apparently, his feet slipped from under him as he stepped on a part of the floor where oils of different colors and consistencies had spilled from broken bottles. Mr. Costacos testified that he was unaware of any danger and that the floor appeared clear and safe to walk on. The respondents offered testimony to the effect that the center aisle still had litter on the floor which indicated the possible danger.
The appellant has combined seven assignments of error into the one basic assertion that the trial court erred in the instruction given and in failure to instruct on his theory of liability and the respective duties of the parties.
The court gave instruction No. 8 to the jury as follows:
Every person is charged with the duty of seeing those objects and conditions which he would see if exercising reasonable care. However, the law does not require a business customer to keep his eyes fixed upon the place in which he is walking, unless there is apparent reason to anticipate that the footing is dangerous. A customer has a right to assume that the premises are in a reasonably safe condition for persons exercising reasonable care for their own safety, and he may rely on such assumption until he knows, or should in the exercise of reasonable care know, to the contrary.
The amount of caution that is required depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. The standard of care is what an ordinary reasonable and prudent person would do if he were a customer under the same or similar circumstances.
Ap...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baltzelle v. Doces Sixth Ave., Inc.
...the former she cannot be. However, the plaintiff's basic duty is to exercise reasonable care to avoid self injury. Costacos v. Spence, 74 Wash.2d 884, 447 P.2d 704 (1968); See also, Rosendahl v. Lesourd Methodist Church, 68 Wash.2d 180, 412 P.2d 109 (1966). Reasonable care on her part may o......
-
Hanson v. Newberry Renton Corp., 245--41208--I
...However, the instruction as given is a correct statement of the law. It was approved by the Supreme Court in Costacos v. Spence, 74 Wash.2d 884, 447 P.2d 704 (1968). We believe that its use should be limited, but upon the record before us, we hold that it was not error to give Appellant urg......
-
Chase v. Continental Trading Corp., 520--41336--I
...displays were designed to attract attention. Appellant wife was under the normal and continuing duty of self-care. Costacos v. Spence, 74 Wash.2d 884, 447 P.2d 704 (1968). Conceivably, she could be excused in whole or in part from the exercise of that duty by distractions in the form of dis......