Hogan v. Metropolitan Bldg. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 May 1922
• Docket Number: 16987.
• Citation: 206 P. 959,120 Wash. 82
• Parties: HOGAN v. METROPOLITAN BLDG. CO. et al.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

206 P. 959

120 Wash. 82

HOGAN v. METROPOLITAN BLDG. CO. et al.

No. 16987.

Supreme Court of Washington

May 8, 1922

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Calvin S. Hall, Judge.

Action by Kate C. Hogan against the Metropolitan Building Company and Annie Laurie Buck. From a judgment for defendant company plaintiff appeals, and defendant Buck appeals from a judgment against her in favor of plaintiff. Affirmed as to the former and reversed as to the latter.

A. W Hastie and E. P. Dole, both of Seattle, for plaintiff.

Bronson Robinson & Jones, of Seattle, for defendant Buck.

Farrell Kane & Stratton, of Seattle, for defendant Metropolitan Bldg. Co.

MITCHELL, J.

Annie Laurie Buck conducted a retail shoe store in a building in Seattle owned by the Metropolitan Building Company, a corporation. Kate C. Hogan, a customer of the shoe store, was injured by a fail in the entranceway from the door to the sidewalk, on the 2d day of August, 1920, and brought this action therefore against both the owner of the building and the proprietor of the store. There was a verdict against both defendants. It was set aside, and the action was dismissed as to the owner, from which the plaintiff has appealed. The tenant, Annie Laurie Buck, interposed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied by the trial court, and judgment was entered on the verdict against her from which she has appealed.

The parties may be spoken of as plaintiff, owner, and tenant, respectively. The situation of the door of the shoe store to the sidewalk was such that from a single step at the sidewalk the entranceway rises regularly 11 inches in the distance of 7 1/2 feet to the door. The entranceway was constructed of evenly troweled cement. The tenant had conducted the business some five years and from the testimony had a daily average of 200 to 250 business callers, with no accident prior to this one. On the day in question the plaintiff entered the place through this the only doorway to the place, purchased a pair of new shoes, kept them on, and on going out, carrying her old shoes and one or several other articles in her arms, lost her footing on the cement way from the door down to the sidewalk and was injured. The accident happened on a bright dry day about 10 o'clock in the morning. There was no obligation on the part of the landlord to repair. Indeed the place at which the plaintiff fell was strong and substantial and structurally just as it was when the building was erected.

Concerning the liability of the owner, it is to be noticed that the plaintiff entered the premises under the right of occupancy and by the solicitation or invitation of the tenant. In such case the owner owes no greater duty to such third person than he does to the tenant himself. Johnson v. Tacoma Cedar Lumber Co., 3 Wash. 722, 29 P. 451; Baker v. Moeller, 52 Wash. 605, 101 P. 231; Mesher v. Osborne, 75 Wash. 439, 134 P. 1092, 48 L R. A. (N. S.) 917; Ames v. Brandvold, 119 Minn. 521, 138 N.W. 786. And even if it be conceded there...