Dolan v. Callender, McAuslan & Troup Co.
| Decision Date | 03 June 1904 |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
| Parties | DOLAN v. CALLENDER, McAUSLAN & TROUP CO. |
Action by May Dolan, an infant, by her next friend, against the Callender, McAuslan & Troup Company. Heard on demurrer to declaration. Judgment for defendant.
Argued before TILLINGHAST, DOUGLAS, and BLODGETT, JJ.
T. F. Farrell, for plaintiff.
Comstock & Gardner, for defendant.
This is trespass on the case for negligence. The declaration alleges that, while the plaintiff was entering the defendant's store, she was injured by a storm door swinging back and striking her fingers with such force as to break the bones of two of them, besides injuring her hand in other respects.
The negligence alleged is that the door which caused said injury was an unsuitable and dangerous one, in this: that it was a double storm door, of great weight, to which were attached springs of great strength, which forced the sides thereof back with great force, and that while the plaintiff, who is a child of the age of 12 years, was attempting to open one side of said double door for the purpose of entering the defendant's store, the other side thereof, which had been opened by some person to the plaintiff unknown, flew back and struck the plaintiff on her hand, injuring her as aforesaid. She also alleges that she was in the exercise of due care at the time of receiving said injury.
The defendant has demurred to the declaration on the grounds (1) that it sets forth no negligence on the part of defendant, it appearing from the declaration that said door could not be dangerous if used with ordinary care; (2) that it also appears by the declaration that the nature and construction of the door were not the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury, but merely a condition thereof, the efficient cause of the accident being the intervening act of a third person; and (3) that it appears that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injury complained of.
We think the demurrer should be sustained upon all of the grounds specified. It is evident from the facts stated in the declaration that the storm doors in question were of ordinary construction, and such as are in common use everywhere. And we think the court can properly take judicial notice that such doors are not dangerous appliances. Such a door, like any other door, may become dangerous when carelessly or improperly used, but the defendant was not called upon to anticipate any such use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Medical Bldg. of Houston
...or condition of the door. See Sheridan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 353 Pa. 11, 44 A.2d 280, 162 A.L.R. 946; Dolan v. Callender, etc., Co., 26 R.I. 198, 58 A. 655; Callaghan v. R. H. White Co., 303 Mass. 413, 22 N.E.2d 10; Sterns v. Highland Hotel Co., 307 Mass. 90, 29 N.E.2d 721; M......
-
Leybold v. Fox Butte Theater Corporation
...injury, the force of the blow did not cause her injury, but the location of her hand upon the door did. In the case of Dolan v. Callender, etc., Co., supra, it was "Such a door, like any other door, may become dangerous when carelessly or improperly used, but the defendant was not called up......
-
Heckendorf v. J. C. Penney Co.
...D.C.Mun.App., 154 A.2d 125; Hammontree v. Edison Bros. Stores (Mo.App.1954), 270 S.W.2d 117. Also see Dolan v. Callender, McAuslan & Troup, Co. (1904), 26 R.I. 198, 58 A. 655; and Leybold v. Fox Butte Theater Corp. (1936), 103 Mont. 232, 62 P.2d 223.5 (1964), 24 Wis.2d 485, 490, 129 N.W.2d ......
-
Home Public Market v. Newrock, 15328.
... ... doors in common use, and properly installed and maintained ... Dolan v. Callendar, McAuslan & Troup Co., 26 R.I ... 198, 58 A. 655; ... ...