Jumonville v. Calogne
| Decision Date | 07 May 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 464,464 |
| Citation | 141 So.2d 430 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
| Parties | Louis JUMONVILLE, married to Lucy Crouchet, and Lucy Crouchet v. Clarence CALOGNE and Home Insurance Company. |
Domengeau & Wright, Bob F. Wright, Lafayette, for plaintiff-appellees.
Sessions, Fishman, Rosenson & Snellings, Breard Snellings, New Orleans, for defendants-appellants.
Before McBRIDE, SAMUEL and JOHNSON, JJ.
The plaintiffs are husband and wife. Mrs. Jumonville is claiming damages for personal injuries suffered on January 1, 1959, when she fell down the basement stairs in the home of Clarence Calogne, and Mr. Jumonville asks to recover medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident. The Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans rendered judgment for plaintiffs and the defendants, Clarence Calogne and his public liability insurer, have appealed suspensively. Plaintiff, Mrs. Jumonville, has answered the appeal, asking that the award to her be increased.
On the occasion of the accident, Mr. and Mrs. Jumonville, along with a few other friends, had been invited to the home of Clarence Calogne, the defendant, and they arrived about 10:00 o'clock a.m. A few minutes after the guests assembled, Mrs. Jumonville asked Mrs. Calogne for permission to use the bathroom. Mrs. Calogne reported that the bathroom was occupied at the moment. Within a very few minutes, while Mrs. Jumonville was in the area of the dining room, or living room, she does not remember which, Mrs. Calogne told her that the bathroom was available and motioned toward the hall which led from the dining room toward the back of the house. Mrs. Calogne led the way into the hall with Mrs. Jumonville following a few feet behind her. After passing out of the dining room into the hall, the first door to the right was closed. When Mrs. Jumonville reached that door, with Mrs. Calogne still walking down the hall a few feet ahead, Mrs. Jumonville opened that first door to the right and fell down the stairs which led to the basement. In the fall Mrs. Jumonville received serious personal injuries.
The Calogne home is described as a raised cottage with the ground floor serving as a so-called basement. Entrance to the main floor is made by steps to the front porch, the floor of which is rather high off the ground. A sketch of the floor plan of the main floor was made by Mr. Calogne while on the witness stand. Entrance to that floor is made from the front porch into the dining room. To the left is the living room. Entering the hall from the dining room the first door to the right leads to the basement. The first door to the left opens into the kitchen. A couple of feet beyond the basement door the hall widens about two feet by an offset in the right hall wall. The bathroom door is located to the right around the corner of the right wall offset. At the end of the hall there are two doors, each leading to a bedroom. It was explained that upon arriving at the basement door going along the hall toward the back of the house, one can not see the bathroom door because the corner made by the offset of the right wall obscures the bathroom door from view until one reaches the offset corner.
The testimony does not explain why Mrs. Calogne was walking ahead of Mrs. Jumonville, but it is reasonable to presume that her purpose was to guide Mrs. Jumonville to the bathroom. Mrs. Jumonville had never been in that home before that occasion. Mrs. Calogne did nothing to indicate that Mrs. Jumonville should enter the basement door. Mrs. Jumonville did not continue to follow Mrs. Calogne, who was just a few feet ahead with her back to Mrs. Jumonville. Mrs. Jumonville opened the basement door, which swung away from the hall, expecting to enter the bathroom on the same floor level. There was no platform and the first step to the basement right at the door was lower than the hall floor. Mrs. Jumonville said she did not see that the steps went down at the door, though it was 10:00 o'clock in the morning and there was no darkness. There was a bedroom in the basement which was occupied by members of the family.
Mrs. Jumonville accounts for her fall by saying that, (Tr. 15):
* * *
And on page 16 she said:
'I was walking forward to the door and as I opened the door I was still coming to walk into the bathroom and I just went right down.'
On cross-examination she was asked if it were not a fact that if she had looked she could have seen the steps going down. She first answered that she could not because the door was closed. The question was asked several times in different forms, but she appeared not to understand the question. She finally did understand and answered that if she had known it was a stairway she was sure she could have seen the steps.
On page 34 this question and answer appears:
Mrs. Jumonville further said that there was nothing defective about the steps or stairs, insofar as she knew. Her counsel argues that there was no sign on the doors designating what rooms they led to and contends that the absence of such signs is negligence on the part of the home owner. He classifies the basement entrance without such a sign as a trap. We do not believe that it is expected or required that the doors along the hall in a private home of this type be labeled, as it is customary to do in public buildings.
The trial Court held that the door situation constituted a dangerous hazard which was not visible. The Court said that under our law the owner of the building has a duty to warn his invited guests of any dangers in the building which are not obvious and that Mr. Calogne's failure to do that in this instance was negligence. We have no doubt that the legal principle or doctrine thus enunciated is sound when applied to facts which disclose hidden dangers in the building. There was no danger in this case with the basement door closed. There was no hidden danger with the basement door open. The only danger here involved was the negligence of Mrs. Jumonville in walking through the open door without looking where her next step would be.
With all due respect for the learned trial Judge, we do not find any Louisiana reported decisions, and none has been pointed out to us, involving facts similar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kramer v. Etie
...to a reasonably prudent and observant person, and which could have been recognized by the exercise of reasonable care. Jumonville v. Calogne, La.App., 141 So.2d 430; Fradger v. Shaffer-Stein Corp., La.App., 73 So.2d In the instant case, the evidence shows that the metal cash box was in the ......
-
Foggin v. General Guaranty Ins. Co.
...v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local No. 43, La.App., 117 So.2d 295 (2nd Cir. 1959) Cert. denied; Jumonville v. Calogne, La.App., 141 So.2d 430 (4th Cir. 1962) Cert. It is urged by appellants that the plank constituted a vice in construction and liability should be determine......
-
Jopling v. Short Cut White Kitchen, Inc.
...occurrence to Mrs. Coquille's inattention and failure to observe, which amounts to negligence on her part.' The case of Jumonville v. Calogne, La.App., 141 So.2d 430 which is cited by plaintiff actually supports contention of the defendant. In this case a woman guest who was being escorted ......
-
Vidrine v. Dupre
...v. Stilwell, 78 So.2d 234 (La.Orl.App.1955); Connella v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, La.App., 119 So.2d 881; Jumonville v. Calogne, La.App., 141 So.2d 430; Magoni v. Wells, La.App., 154 So.2d 524 (writ of certiorari refused). Certainly Mrs. Vidrine should have seen this step by t......