Kidd v. Thomas Gilcrease Foundation
Decision Date | 13 March 1952 |
Docket Number | No. 13435.,13435. |
Citation | 194 F.2d 129 |
Parties | KIDD v. THOMAS GILCREASE FOUNDATION. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Reynolds N. Cate, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.
Grady Barrett, Clinton G. Brown, Jr., San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.
Before HOLMES, RUSSELL, and RIVES, Circuit Judges.
Lillie Mae Kidd joined by her husband, brought this action against the Thomas Gilcrease Foundation for damages for personal injuries received by her when she slipped and fell on a stairway.
At the conclusion of the evidence offered by the plaintiff the Trial Court upon motion of the Defendant instructed a verdict for the Defendant.
The building was owned by the Gilcrease Foundation and leased to the Veterans' Administration, the lease providing that the Gilcrease Foundation would maintain the premises in good repair.
The testimony as to the occurrence of the accident is very meager and is contained in the following part of Mrs. Kidd's direct examination:
The defendant's counsel did not cross-examine Mrs. Kidd and, as we have stated, the defendant offered no witnesses.
At the time of the accident Mrs. Kidd was 53 years of age and in good health. From her fall she suffered a broken hip with complications leaving her permanently injured.
The defendant admitted the absence of the hand-rail. There was testimony from the official in charge of the city building inspection department that the treads of the steps should be of uniform width. This witness further testified:
In an action by a hotel guest for injuries sustained as a result of a fall while descending the hotel stairway, the Texas Supreme Court said: . Blanks v. Southland Hotel, Tex., 229 S.W. 2d 357, 359.
Applying that test to the testimony in this case, we think that on the issue of negligence vel non a prima facie case was proved sufficient to require submission to the jury in the absence of any rebuttal testimony.
The question of whether the evidence as to the cause of Mrs. Kidd's slipping and falling was sufficient to justify submission to the jury presents more difficulty. Except possibly by inference, Mrs. Kidd did not testify that she missed her footing on account of any darkness, or by misjudging the width of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holsman v. Darling State St. Corp.
...fell due to the negligence of the defendant. Under the facts in the case before us that case is not in point. In Kidd v. Thomas Gilcrease Foundation, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 129, 130, the court '* * * Except possibly by inference, Mrs. Kidd did not testify that she missed her footing on account of......
-
White Auto Stores v. Reyes
...Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., 8 Cir., 197 F.2d 259; Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Key, 5 Cir., 196 F.2d 64; Kidd v. Thomas Gilcrease Foundation, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 129; Lucero v. Harshey, 50 N.M. 1, 165 P.2d 587; White v. Montoya, 46 N.M. 241, 126 P.2d 471; Greenfield v. Bruskas, 41 N.M. 346,......
-
Vosbeck v. Lerdall, 36548
...In such instances, it might well be found that ordinary care would require a handrail thereon as a safety measure. Kidd v. Thomas Gilcrease Foundation, 5 Cir., 194 F.2d 129; White v. Herbst, 128 Conn. 659, 25 A.2d 68; Dexter v. Fisher, 256 App.Div. 738, 11 N.Y.S.2d 776, affirmed, 281 N.Y. 7......
-
Papadatos v. National Tea Co.
...perhaps more analogous to the instant case, are cases involving stairway falls. In particular, the cases of Holsman v. Darling State Street Corp., 6 Ill.App.2d 517, 128 N.E.2d 581 and Wright v. Stech, 7 Ill.App.3d 1068, 1070, 288 N.E.2d 648 contain useful points. In Holsman, the plaintiff w......