Jordan v. Sullivan

• Decision Date: 21 May 1902
• Citation: 63 N.E. 909,181 Mass. 348
• Parties: JORDAN v. SULLIVAN.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

181 Mass. 348

63 N.E. 909

JORDAN v. SULLIVAN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 21, 1902

COUNSEL

I. R. Clark and J. H. Sherburne, for plaintiff.

Morse & Friedman, for defendant.

OPINION

LORING J.

This is an action for damages caused by falling over a step at the entrance of a flight of stairs leading to a public hall owned by the defendant. The hall had been let for the installation of a new lodge of the New England Order of Protection. Whether the plaintiff came to the hall for her own curiosity or convenience, as the plaintiffs did in Plummer v Dill, 156 Mass. 426, 31 N.E. 128, 32 Am. St. Rep. 463 and Coupe v. Platt, 172 Mass. 458, 52 N.E. 526, 70 Am. St. Rep. 293, or as an invited guest, is not plain; but in our opinion, that is not material. The hall was up one flight of stairs, and was reached from the street by going through a vestibule to a landing, called in the bill of exceptions an 'inner hall,' and then up a flight of stairs. The floor of the landing was one step higher than the floor of the vestibule. The inner door of the vestibule was on the outer edge of the floor of the landing, and opened out into the vestibule. The outside door of the vestibule also opened outward. The plaintiff got to the hall between 7 and 8 o'clock on the evening of Janary 31st. It was a stormy right, and snowing heavily. There were no lights outside the outer door. It appeared that two persons went through the two doors before the plaintiff, and that the doors closed, or were closed, after them. The plaintiff opened the outer door, and found herself in the vestibule, which was entirely dark. She found the knob of the inner door by feeling for it, opened it, and, without looking to see if there was a step up, went straight along, fell over the step up, and broke her arm. She testified that she never had been to the hall before; that she did not know that the hall was upstairs, but 'thought she was going into an entry, and then into the hall.' She did not look to see whether there was a step, because it was so dark she could not see and 'because she thought this hall was built like the hall of her own lodge.' On the evidence it could have been found that it was really dark at the landing at the time in question, even after the inner door had been opened. The only means provided for lighting the landing at the foot of the stairs came from one gas jet at the head of the stairs behind a portiére. The rod of the portiere was 3 1/2 feet from the ceiling and when it was drawn across the head of the stairs the only light coming to the landing was that which came through this 3 1/2-foot space. This gas jet was lighted on the night in question, and there was evidence at the time of the accident the portiere was drawn wholly, or nearly wholly, across the head of the stairs. It appeared by the agreement of hiring that the hall was to be heated and lighted by the defendant. It also appeared that the janitor of the building was present on the premises when the first member of the new lodge arrived there on the night in question. There was no other evidence on the question whether the entrance was in the control of the defendant or not. It is plain that the defendant was not in control of the curtain. The curtain was manifestly put where it was to shut off the stairs from an anteroom at the head of the stairs on the left from the main entrance to the hall, which was...