Hayden v. Colville Valley Nat. Bank

• Decision Date: 26 December 1934
• Docket Number: 25315.
• Citation: 180 Wash. 220,39 P.2d 376
• Parties: HAYDEN v. COLVILLE VALLEY NAT. BANK.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

39 P.2d 376

180 Wash. 220

HAYDEN v. COLVILLE VALLEY NAT. BANK.

No. 25315.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 26, 1934

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Stevens County; Matt L. Driscoll, Judge.

Action by Carrie E. Hayden against the Colville Valley National Bank, a corporation. Verdict in favor of plaintiff. From judgment for defendant notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appeals.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions.

John T Raftis, of Colville, and Robertson & Smith, of Spokane, for appellant.

W. Lon Johnson and F. Leo Grinstead, both of Colville, for respondent.

HOLCOMB Justice.

This action was brought for damages for permanent injuries to appellant, a spinster, which she alleged were caused by the negligence of respondent in the maintenance of a single step in the main hallway on the second floor of its bank building in Colville. The case was tried to the court and a jury which, after hearing conflicting evidence resolved the evidence in favor of appellant and awarded her $2,500.

This verdict was later set aside by the court and judgment entered for respondent, notwithstanding the verdict, dismissing the action upon the ground that appellant's own evidence showed that she was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law and that the step upon which she had fallen was not inherently dangerous or defective. At the same time an alternative motion for a new trial was denied.

A memorandum decision was filed by the trial judge which may be summarized as follows: (1) There was nothing inherently dangerous about the step in question; it was not defective or improperly constructed; and (2) appellant had been over the step twelve or fifteen times Before , had passed over it thirty or forty seconds Before she fell, knew the step was there, failed to use ordinary care and caution, and walked off the step without paying any attention to where she was going, and, as a result, fell and was injured, and is therefore guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

The sole assignment of error is in granting the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and dismissing the action.

The trial judge seemed to consider that certain answers made by appellant to interrogatories when her deposition was taken while she was in a hospital, should be construed most strongly against her. That is incorrect. In passing upon a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, all statements favorable to the contention of plaintiff must be taken as true, and the trial court must consider all inferences most favorable to plaintiff and most strongly against defendant. Fisher v. Tacoma Railway &amp Power Co., 148 Wash. 122, 268 P. 180; Bryant v. Hartford Eastern Railway Co., 158 Wash. 389, 290 p. 874.

The court can find one guilty of contributory negligence, as a matter of law, only when the standard of duty is fixed and the measure of duty defined by law, and is the same under all circumstances, or where the facts are undisputed and but one reasonable inference can be drawn from them, and if different results cannot honestly be reached by different minds. McQuillan v. Seattle, 10 Wash. 464, 38 P. 1119, 1120, 45 Am. St. Rep. 799; Bell v. Northwest Cities Gas Co., 164 Wash. 450, 2 P.2d 644.

Although there was conflicting evidence, the evidence on behalf of appellant showed substantially these facts: About 1908 the building now owned by respondent was constructed. At that time it consisted of the banking room on the street floor and several offices on the second floor to which access was had by a flight of stairs consisting of twenty-seven steps located in the rear of the banking room and at the back of the building. At that time a single hallway step, from which appellant fell, was constructed. Originally, a window was evidently contemplated at the top stair landing, which would have furnished direct light upon this step. The following year an annex of the same height was built at the rear of the original building. The stairway constructed to serve the original building was also used to give access to the annex. The hallway to the annex was connected with the original stairway landing. The step in question is a single step, 6 1/2 inches in height. To one in the hallway approaching this step, which extends diagonally across the hallway to the west of the stair landing, and looking east into the annex hallway, the entire hall of about 70 feet in length, had the appearance of one level floor in both buildings. This unusual step was deceptive in appearance. It was not readily discernible. There was nothing to attract one's attention to it, and, unless one had a present knowledge of the step, or was actually looking at it, it was dangerous. Witnesses testified that it was not standard construction; that there were no signs or warnings about the step, such as an arrow, a marker on the floor, a return railing, or an artificial light, when the accident occurred, although there was a light situated directly over the landing, which the evidence showed was turned on at times during the day, but that the hallway was in darkness when appellant fell on this step. The only natural light which could reach the step had to come from a skylight about 11 feet west, which was dark and dim, and a window about 13 feet east, which, from their locations, threw no direct light upon this obscure step. The step was situated in a shadow, and on and prior to August 30, 1933, the date of the injury to appellant, the walls and floors were dark and dingy. Others had stumbled or fallen on this step prior to that day, and a director of the bank had notice of that fact and had commented upon it.

On August 30, 1933, appellant, then seventy-three years of age, was in Colville on business matters. She desired to consult with her attorneys, whose office was in the bank building, about an important legal matter. The door of their office was about 7 feet west of the step in question. As she ascended the main stairway, she paid no particular attention to any step or steps, but walked up in the normal and usual way, with all steps raised Before her eyes, with her mind centered upon, and entirely occupied by, her business. In going up, all steps, in effect, were one stairway. In returning, there was this diagonal step in the hallway and a separate stairway descending at a right angle. She had not been in the bank building for at least a year, although she had been on that floor of the building from twelve to fifteen times Before and had no particular recollection or impression of this hallway step upon which she later fell. She reached the door of her attorneys' office and found it locked, which unexpected fact distracted her. Also at that time painters were engaged in renovating the hallway in question, although they had not then redecorated and lightened the walls, floor, and surroundings about this step. There was confusion in the building on that floor, and she became confused and distracted. She hesitated there in the hallway for a short time, debating whether to go down stairs and come back later, or remain there until her attorneys returned. After a minute or two, or possibly more, she decided to go down and return later. She started from the door of her attorneys' office and approached the stairs, at which time her attention was diverted by a man at the end of the hallway in front of her and by a door opening into a room there. It was very dark in the hallway, and she did not see the step. She did not know it was there, and there was nothing to warn her of its presence. Her mind was on her business and the distraction in the hallway. The light at the stair landing was turned off. Any previous observation she may have made of that step was merely a passing glance, such as would apply to the stairway, leaving no particular impression, and at no time did she know or observe that this single step out of the twenty-eight steps was dangerous or perilous to one approaching from the hallway. She was proceeding in a natural, normal way to the stairs, assuming, without present knowledge of the obscure and deceptive step, that the hallway down which she was proceeding to the stairway was level, as it appeared to be, and as are the great majority of hallways in public buildings. Without warning, she was precipitated off this hallway step, falling to the floor and breaking her hip.

Two witnesses on behalf of appellant, who were experienced carpenters and builders, testified, and also three who testified on behalf of respondent admitted, that it is not standard building practice to have a stepdown in a corridor that there...