Dickau v. Rafala
| Decision Date | 23 March 1954 |
| Citation | 104 A.2d 214,141 Conn. 121 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DICKAU v. RAFALA et al. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
Robert Y. Pelgrift, Hartford, with whom was Robert E. Cohn, Hartford, for appellants (defendants).
Jacob Schwolsky, Hartford, with whom were Seymour A. Rothenberg, Hartford, and, on the brief, Henry J. Goldberg, Hartford, for appellee (plaintiff).
Before INGLIS, C. J., and BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY *, JJ.
The plaintiff sued the defendants to recover damages for injuries received while she was upon their premises. The following facts are not disputed: On May 6, 1950, and for a long time prior thereto, the defendants owned and operated a retail store in which they sold groceries and other food products to the general public. The merchandise was displayed for sale on counters, shelves and fixtures. One of the fixtures was located at the east end of the store and extended from the floor almost to the ceiling. It was so constructed, and the display was so arranged, as to form a partition at the rear of the store. An aisle immediately behind the partition could be entered from the northerly side of the store at the rear. There was a toilet, the entrance to which was near the southerly end of the aisle.
On May 6, 1950, at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, the plaintiff, a woman sixty-two years old, was a customer in the store, which she had patronized weekly for some time. She was shopping for groceries in the north end of the store and was waited on by Carmelina Rafala, the clerk and daughter of the defendants. After completing her shopping, the plaintiff asked the clerk for permission to use the toilet. Taking the shopping bag which the plaintiff proffered her, Carmelina pointed generally toward the rear and said, 'Right that way in back of you.' The plaintiff proceeded as directed, walked around the northerly end of the partition and entered the aisle behind it. A few feet along the aisle, a door leading to a storage room was open and blocked off the aisle south of it. The plaintiff turned through the open door and descended two steps into the storage room, which was in semidarkness. She saw an open door, believed it was the door to the toilet and walked toward it. Upon reaching the doorway, she cautiously stepped down onto a landing and, while groping about in the dark for a light or switch to illuminate the toilet, fell down a flight of steps to the concrete floor of the basement. She was seriously injured. There was no sign in the store showing the way to the toilet, which was intended for the use of the employees in the store but was actually used by customers as well. It was the general practice of the defendants and their employees personally to conduct customers to the toilet if they were strangers and had not used it before. The plaintiff who had not used the toilet in the store before, was a ponderous woman who walked slowly and carefully, as well as laboriously, because of prior infirmities.
The trial court concluded that the plaintiff was a business visitor, or invitee, during the entire time she was on the premises, that the defendants were negligent, that their negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's fall and injuries and that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The defendants have appealed from the judgment for the plaintiff, claiming error in these conclusions.
The first question presented for our consideration is whether the court erred in concluding that the plaintiff was an invitee during the entire time she was on the premises of the defendants. Where it is customary for customers or patrons to be free to go to certain parts of the premises, the customer or patron is a business visitor thereon unless the possessor exercises reasonable care to apprise him that the area of invitation is more narrowly restricted. The toilet in the rear of the defendants' store was one which customers were accustomed to use. This made of the toilet an area to which customers were invited. The present case is therefore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Misiti, LLC v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am.
...reasonable steps to prevent invitees from encountering defect that possessor knew existed on neighboring property); Dickau v. Rafala, 141 Conn. 121, 124, 104 A.2d 214 (1954) (“[w]here it is customary for customers or patrons to be free to go to certain parts of the premises, the customer or......
-
Houston v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...... done by an invitee....' " (quoting Loney v. Laramie Auto Co., 36 Wyo. 339, 255 P. 350, 353 (1927))). But see Dickau v. Rafala, 141 Conn. 121, 104 A.2d 214 (1954), in which the plaintiff was patronizing the grocery store of the defendant. There was a rest room in a nonpublic area of the ......
-
Morin v. Bell Court Condominium Ass'n
..."Ordinarily, the status of one who sustains injury while upon the property of another is a question of fact. Dickau v. Rafala, 141 Conn. 121, 124, 104 A.2d 214 [1954]; Girard v. Kabatznick, 128 Conn. 520, 525, 24 A.2d 257 [1942]; Knapp v. Connecticut Theatrical Corporation, 122 Conn. 413, 4......
-
Cupita v. Carmel Country Club, Inc.
...anticipated, except where he is present and actively cooperates with the invitee in the particular use of the premises. Dickau v. Rafala, 141 Conn. 121, 104 A.2d 214; Leenders v. California Hawaiian Sugar Refining Corp., 59 Cal.App.2d 752, 139 P.2d 987; Tomsky v. Kaczka, 17 N.J. Super. 211,......