Johnson v. Ramberg
| Decision Date | 25 April 1892 |
| Citation | 51 N.W. 1043,49 Minn. 341 |
| Parties | Jonas G. Johnson v. John F. Ramberg |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
April 7, 1892, Argued
Appeal by defendant, John F. Ramberg, from an order of the District Court of Chisago County, Williston, J., made December 17 1891, refusing his motion for a new trial.
The defendant, on November 6, 1889, had a general retail store at Rush City, Minn. Plaintiff was a farmer, sixty years of age and went there in the afternoon of that day to buy goods, and fell down the cellar stairs, as stated in the opinion. The action was tried October 15, 1891. Plaintiff had a verdict for $ 500. The defendant moved for a new trial, and appealed from the order denying it.
Order reversed.
D Murphy, for appellant.
The defendant was not negligent in the premises. The stairs were properly constructed and well lighted and well adapted for the use for which they were built, and their use was entirely of a private nature. They were not intended for use by customers.
The plaintiff was negligent in the premises, and did not use ordinary care or prudence. Donaldson v. Milwaukee & St P. Ry. Co., 21 Minn. 293.
S. C. Olmstead, for respondent.
The passage through the wareroom had become one of the usual means of entrance to the store, and plaintiff had a right to use it in entering the store as a customer of the defendant. Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Wheeler, 31 Minn. 121; Trask v. Shotwell, 41 Minn. 66; Nash v. Minneapolis Mill Co., 24 Minn. 501; O'Callaghan v. Bode, 84 Cal. 489.
There was sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that the stairway, located so near the passage and in the shade, was dangerous, and that it should have been protected by a bar or guard of some kind. Just as plaintiff reached the door leading into the store, he was suddenly brought face to face with the defendant, coming in the opposite direction. He did the most natural and proper thing in the world, -- stepped aside to let him pass, -- and fell. It is not contributory negligence not to look out for danger when there is no reason to apprehend any. Beach, Contrib. Neg. 41; Grand Rapids & I. R. Co. v. Martin, 41 Mich. 667; Engel v. Smith, 82 Mich. 1.
The defendant was engaged in the business of a merchant in a village in this state. The building occupied by him consisted of a large, well-lighted room, where he sold goods and did business with his customers, and which will be hereafter designated as the "store," and of a long room, 18 feet wide, extending along the west side of the store, from which it was separated only by a partition. A door in this partition, partly composed of glass, afforded communication between the two rooms. The room last described will be designated the "wareroom." This was used for the storing of large packages, and of cumbersome and heavy goods such as pork, fish, salt, oil, nails, etc., and also as a place where the defendant received goods in bulk, including potatoes and other produce brought to him by farmers. The main entrance to the store was directly from the street at the south end or front. There was also an entrance in the rear, near the northwest corner. In the middle of the west wall of the wareroom was a sliding door six feet wide and seven feet high, arranged so as to be opened, closed, and fastened from the inside only, and which was designed and principally used for receiving or shipping out goods as above indicated; but some of the defendant's customers used to occupy vacant premises just west of the building as a place for their teams to stand, and those leaving their teams there would often enter the store from that side, when they found the large sliding door open, passing through that, across the wareroom, and into the store through the...
To continue reading
Request your trial