Greyhound Terminal of Louisville, Inc. v. Thomas

• Decision Date: 18 November 1947
• Parties: GREYHOUND TERMINAL OF LOUISVILLE, Inc. v. THOMAS.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

209 S.W.2d 478

307 Ky. 44

GREYHOUND TERMINAL OF LOUISVILLE, Inc. v. THOMAS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

November 18, 1947

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing March 26, 1948.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County, Common Pleas Branch First Division; Roscoe Conkling, Judge.

Action by Nannie Thomas against Greyhound Terminal of Louisville Inc., for injuries sustained from fall on steps of defendant's bus terminal building.

From an adverse judgment, defendant appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Edward J. Hogan, of Louisville, for appellant.

David R. Castleman and Joseph J. Hancock, both of Louisville, and Paul L. Williams, of Nashville, Tenn., for appellee.

VAN SANT, Commissioner.

On the morning of the third day of January, 1945 appellee was traveling by bus from Nashville, Tennessee, to Detroit, Michigan. It was necessary for her to change busses in Louisville and, while waiting for the connecting bus, she went to the ladies' rest room on the second floor of appellant's terminal building. Returning by the stairway she descended four steps to the landing without mishap; when she started down the remaining 15 or 16 steps, the heel of her shoe engaged 'something' which caused her to stumble. She was walking to the right of center of the steps which were approximately four feet in width. She was carrying her handbag and a suit box under her left arm, but her right hand and arm were free, and with them she reached for a handrail to steady herself and check the fall, but none was there. She fell the entire length of the remaining stairway, finally landing on the floor. She suffered severe and permanent injuries as a result of the accident. She filed this action against appellant, alleging negligence of defendant in maintaining a dangerous and unsafe stairway. On trial of the case she was awarded $6,750 in damages. Appellant contends that the Court erred (1) in overruling its motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence; (2) in permitting appellee to introduce incompetent evidence; and (3) the verdict is excessive and appears to have been rendered under the influence of passion and prejudice.

The dangerous and unsafe condition of the stairway relied upon by appellee is the failure of appellant to provide a handrail on the right side of the stairs going down, as required by ordinance of the City of Louisville, which, in so far as pertinent, reads: '* * * All stairs shall have walls or well secured balustrades or guards on both sides, and except in dwellings, shall have hand rails on both sides. * * *.'

The violation of the terms of an ordinance is negligence per se; but in an action for damages, such violation must be the proximate cause of the accident to permit recovery for its violation. Pryor's Adm'r v. Otter, 268 Ky. 602, 105 S.W.2d 564; Home Laundry Co. v. Cook, 277 Ky. 8, 125 S.W.2d 763. In Durham v. Maratta, 302 Ky. 633, 195 S.W.2d 277, 279, we said: 'If the injury complained of is one which was intended to be prevented by the Statute and Ordinance, supra, the violation of their provisions must be considered as the proximate cause of the injury. 20 R.C.L. 43.'

There can be no doubt that the purpose of the ordinance is to prevent persons descending or ascending a stairway from falling thereon. Appellee testified to facts from which a jury could not escape the conclusion that, had a handrail been maintained on both sides of the stairway in question she would not have fallen. That being true, under the rule above recited, the failure to maintain the handrail in accordance with the terms of the ordinance must be considered to have been the proximate cause of appellee's injuries. Appellant relies on Seelbach, Inc., v. Mellman, 293 Ky. 790, 170 S.W.2d 18; Tate v. Canary Cottage, 302 Ky. 313, 194 S.W.2d 663; and Phoenix Amusement Co. v. Padgett's Adm'x, 301 Ky. 338, 192 S.W.2d 105, and other cases. Since the three cases cited are most nearly in point with appellant's contention, we will confine our remarks to them. In the Seelbach case, plaintiff was denied recovery because of contributory negligence which the Court held to be such as a matter of law. In that case, the Hotel Company had provided handrails on both sides of the stairway. The steps were extremely slick. The plaintiff worked in an office on the second floor of the hotel,...