Holmes v. Moesser
| Decision Date | 15 October 1953 |
| Citation | 262 P.2d 27,120 Cal.App.2d 612 |
| Parties | HOLMES et al. v. MOESSER. Civ. 19621. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Henry C. Rohr, Los Angeles, for appellants.
Moss, Lyon & Dunn, Gerold C. Dunn, and Henry F. Walker, Los Angeles, for respondent.
From a judgment in favor of defendant, predicated upon the granting of her motion for a directed verdict in an action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from a fall on a stairway, plaintiffs appeal.
Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to appellants (Hunt v. United Bank & Trust Co., 210 Cal. 108, 117, 291 P. 184 the facts are these:
Defendant was the owner of an apartment house in which plaintiffs (husband and wife) rented an apartment which they occupied March 1, 1951. The apartment rented by plaintiffs was located on the second floor to the right of the front stairway when ascending the stairs. The stairway had two portions with a landing at the halfway point. In ascending the stairs the first series of steps from the ground floor to the middle landing had a wall without a handrail on the right side and a wall with a wooden rail on the left side. From the landing to the second floor the steps had a wall on the left without a handrail and a wall on the right side which was 32 or 33 inches above the steps and was 5 1/2 inches wide. The following is a photograph of the area:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
Between 11 and 12 o'clock on the morning of June 7, 1951, plaintiff Estelle E. Holmes descended the stairway to get any mail that might have been delivered. With a letter in her hand she started up the stairs. She was wearing 'spectator' shoes with 'box' toes, in other words, a sport shoe with a cuban heel. After having ascended the first series of steps to the landing she stepped from the landing onto the first step with her right foot, raised her weight thereon and then placed her left foot on the second step. Her left foot slipped causing her to fall with resulting personal injuries.
Plaintiffs contend that defendant was negligent in having failed to comply with section 46 of the State Housing Act (Stats. 1923, Ch. 386, pp. 781, 812) which provides in part: 'Every stairway hereafter constructed, in an apartment house or hotel, shall be as follows: * * * Every stairway shall have at least one handrail, and if the stairway be five feet or more in width, shall have a handrail on each side thereof.'
This is the sole question necessary for us to determine:
Is there any substantial evidence which would sustain an inference that defendant's alleged negligence * was the proximate cause of plaintiff Estelle Holmes' injury?
No. In order to warrant a judgment for negligence plaintiffs must prove that defendant has committed a wrongful act which is the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. It is not sufficient that the evidence raises merely a conjecture, a suspicion or a speculation that defendant has committed a wrongful act. (Chapman v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 68 Cal.App.2d 745, 751, 158 P.2d 42.)
It...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Laird v. T. W. Mather, Inc.
...to the basement. Defendant cites several decisions for the proposition that it is not liable as a matter of law. In Holmes v. Moesser, 120 Cal.App.2d 612, 262 P.2d 27, the plaintiff fell on stairs that did not have a handrail even though a statute required that one be provided. In affirming......
-
Washington v. District of Columbia, 13095.
...Wash.2d 512, 518, 262 P.2d 189, 193 (1953); Cossette, supra, 38 Wis.2d at 399-400, 157 N.W.2d at 632. But see Holmes v. Moesser, 120 Cal.App.2d 612, 614, 262 P.2d 27, 29 (1953). In Noland, supra, for example, the Supreme Court of Kansas concluded that the trial court erred in dismissing pla......
-
Rufo v. N.B.C. National Broadcasting Co.
...notwithstanding the verdict is in order. Dalrymple v. Hanson, 1 Cal. 125, 127; Ringgold v. Haven, 1 Cal. 108, 117; Holmes v. Moesser, 120 Cal.App.2d 612, 262 P.2d 27; Bolar v. Maxwell Hardware Co., 205 Cal. 396, 402, 271 P. 97, 60 A.L.R. 429. And such is the rule even though the evidence is......
-
Burdette v. Rollefson Const. Co.
...is the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury. Valdez v. Taylor Automobile Co., 129 Cal.App.2d 810, 821, 278 P.2d 91; Holmes v. Moesser, 120 Cal.App.2d 612, 614, 262 P.2d 27. (2) The burden of proof devolves on plaintiff to show the causal connection between the alleged negligence and the re......