Lunde v. National Citizens Bank of Mankato

• Decision Date: 20 November 1942
• Docket Number: No. 33315.,33315.
• Citation: 213 Minn. 278,6 N.W.2d 809
• Parties: LUNDE v. NATIONAL CITIZENS BANK OF MANKATO et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

6 N.W.2d 809

213 Minn. 278

LUNDE v. NATIONAL CITIZENS BANK OF MANKATO et al.

No. 33315.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

November 20, 1942.

Appeal from District Court, Blue Earth County; Harry A. Johnson, Judge.

Action by Eleanor Lunde against the National Citizens Bank of Mankato and another to recover for injuries sustained when the glass in a door in a building owned by named defendant was broken. From an order denying the named defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict for plaintiff or a new trial, the named defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Wilson & Blethen, and Arthur H. Ogle, all of Mankato, for appellant.

Schmitt, Johnson & Farrish, of Mankato, for respondent Lunde.

E. D. McLean, of Mankato, for respondent Zeno.

PIRSIG, Justice.

Defendant National Citizens Bank of Mankato, hereafter called the bank, owned a building in Mankato, the second story of which was leased for office purposes to various tenants. These offices opened onto a hallway running east and west from one end of the building to the other. At the east end a so-called "inner door" with a glass window in it led from the hall to a vestibule. An outer door separated the vestibule from a back stairway. The bank was in charge of and maintained the hallway and the doors leading to it. On and prior to May 27, 1941, plaintiff was employed by one of the office tenants. On that day she was approaching the inner door, which was open at the time. As she came within two feet of it, a sudden gust of wind accompanying an approaching storm slammed the door shut with such force and violence that the glass in it was shattered and showered on plaintiff. In this action she seeks to recover for the injuries sustained. The only testimony produced was that for plaintiff, at the close of which defendant also rested. The verdict was for plaintiff.

The bank claims that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict. The evidence permitted the jury to find that the hall and its doors were in constant use by the tenants. In the summertime the doors were usually open. Drafts through the hall were common. On several occasions, for a considerable time previous to the accident, the inner door had slammed shut and the glass window in it had been found lying broken on the floor—sometimes in water which had rained into the hall. In these instances the door had been repaired. On other occasions it had slammed without breaking the glass. The tenants frequently used a wooden wedge, or at other times some heavy article such as a seal, to keep the inner door from swinging shut.

A landlord is under a duty to maintain the premises under his supervision and control so that they will be reasonably safe for use by his tenants and those who come upon the premises by reason of the tenants' occupation. See the recent decision of this court in Anderson v. Winkle, 213 Minn. ___, 5 N.W.2d 355. In the instant case the jury was entitled to find that reasonable care would have disclosed to the bank that the door had frequently blown shut with such force that the glass in it had broken and that from these conditions it could reasonably be foreseen that injury to someone entitled to use the premises might result unless measures were taken to make the door secure. It is not a defense that the natural forces against which defendant should have guarded operated in this particular instance with unusual and sudden violence. In Moore v. Townsend, 76 Minn. 64, 78 N.W. 880, the defendant negligently permitted a ladder to stand against his premises over the sidewalk. An unusual wind blew it down and injured the plaintiff. The court sustained recovery because negligence appeared in permitting the ladder to stand as it did, and (76 Minn. 68, 78 N.W. 880) "the fact that some other cause operated in connection with this negligence could not relieve defendants from liability. The original negligence concurred with another cause, and, operating at the same moment, produced the injury." See, also, Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co., 146 Minn. 430, 179 N. W. 45; Prosser, "The Minnesota Court on Proximate Cause," 21 Minn.L.Rev. 19, 55. This answers also counsel's claim here that no proximate cause existed between the negligence of the bank and the injury sustained.

It appears that plaintiff had worked in the building for many years and was familiar with the condition of the door. This, however, does not affect the right of recovery in this case. Such knowledge does not establish that defendant did not owe plaintiff a duty to use reasonable care. The Minnesota decisions relied upon by the bank for the contrary do not so hold. Albachten v. Golden Rule, 135 Minn. 381, 160 N.W. 1012, and Merrill v. Morris Court, Inc., 180 Minn. 565, 231 N.W. 231, hold only that no breach of a conceded duty to the plaintiff was shown. In Dehn v. Buck, 165 Minn. 310, 206 N.W. 435, and Johnson v. Ramberg, 49 Minn. 341, 51 N.W. 1043, this court held that the plaintiffs in those cases were so oblivious to their surroundings that contributory negligence, which had been raised in the cases, appeared. This issue was not raised in the present case. Language in Smith v. Emporium Mercantile Co., Inc., 190 Minn. 294, 297, 251 N.W. 265, is not inconsistent with these...