McGuire v. Valley Nat. Bank of Phoenix, 7057
| Decision Date | 15 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 7057,7057 |
| Citation | 94 Ariz. 50,381 P.2d 588 |
| Parties | Vaughn S. McGUIRE, Appellant, v. VALLEY NATIONAL BANK OF PHOENIX, a national banking association, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Robert Morrison and W. T. Willey, Phoenix, for appellant.
Snell & Wilmer, by Roger W. Perry and Donald R. Kunz, Phoenix, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a personal injury action from a directed verdict entered against him at the close of his evidence. He contends that his evidence on the issue of the defendant's negligence was sufficient to go to the jury, and further, that the court erred in excluding certain testimony.
About 4 p. m., March 11, 1957, the plaintiff, a practicing dentist, left his office on the eleventh floor of the Professional Building, which was managed by the defendant, and climbed a half flight of stairs leading to a restroom maintained by the defendant for the use of its tenants. While climbing these stairs, he slipped on a 'pebble-like substance', fell, and sustained personal injures. The plaintiff's evidence showed that for a period of months prior to the accident, workmen of an independent contractor employed by the defendant had been engaged in renovating the air conditioning system located on the twelfth floor of the Professional Building. These workmen used the stairway upon which plaintiff fell for access from the eleventh floor elevator to the twelfth floor, in going to and from the restroom between the eleventh and twelfth floors, and in going to and from the water fountain on the eleventh floor. Use of the stairway by these workmen had resulted in 'dust, grit and dirt' being tracked down from the working areas on the twelfth floor to the stairway and to the eleventh floor. Materials used by the workmen were not carried over the route described, but were raised outside of the building by hoist. Debris resulting from the work was taken down by means of the hoist. The working area on the twelfth floor was separated from the stairway by doors and a small lobby.
Neither the plaintiff nor the officers of the defendant responsible for the management of the Professional Building had noticed 'pebble-like substances' similar to that which caused plaintiff's fall prior to the accident. However, two members of defendant's janitorial staff testified they had seen such particles on the stairway prior to March 11th. One of these witnesses testified that he observed such particles on the stairway earlier on the day of plaintiff's accident, and that he removed them, leaving the area clean when he left the building at 1:40 p. m., a little more than two hours prior to the plaintiff's accident. There was no evidence as to when, following the time the janitor cleaned the stairway, the pebble which caused the plaintiff's accident was deposited on the stairway.
The trial judge ruled that this evidence was insufficient to show negligence of the defendant, and we agree. In order to show that a landlord has negligently breached his duty to use reasonable care in maintaining a common stairway for the use of his tenants, where the injury results from a foreign substance deposited on the stairs of which the landlord has no actual knowledge, the plaintiff must ordinarily show that the foreign substance is the result of the act of the landlord or his agents, e. g. Berardo v. Ambrozy, 128 N.J.L. 295, 25 A.2d 538 (1942), or that it has been in existence for a sufficient length of time prior to the injury for the landlord, in the exercise of reasonable care, to find and correct it, Cf. City of Yuma v. Evans, 85 Ariz. 229, 336 P.2d 135 (1959). See also the extensive annotation at 25 A.L.R.2d 364, 429, 433, and cases cited therein.
While the plaintiff's evidence would support the inference that the pebble was deposited on the stairway as a result of the activities of the men working on the twelfth floor, the defendant is not to be charged under these circumstances with the negligence of an independent contractor employed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chesin Const. Co. v. Epstein
...contractor is not liable for physical harm caused to another by an act or omission of the subcontractor. McGuire v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix, 94 Ariz. 50, 381 P.2d 588 (1963); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 409, at 370. There are several well-recognized exceptions to this rule and w......
-
Smith v. Delvin
...it is not enough that negligence might have existed. Berne v. Greyhound Parks, 104 Ariz. 38, 448 P.2d 388 (1968); McGuire v. Valley Nat. Bank, 94 Ariz. 50, 381 P.2d 588 (1963). The record does not disclose any additional facts to make the inference that Smith had time to avoid the accident ......
-
Blancas v. Carniceria Puerto Del Torro #2, Inc.
...is to exercise reasonable care for safety of his invitees. Bloom, 130 Ariz. at 449, 636 P.2d at 1231 (citing McGuire v. Valley Nat'l Bank of Phx., 94 Ariz. 50, 381 P.2d 588 (1963) and Walker v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 20 Ariz. App. 255, 258, 511 P.2d 699, 702 (1973)). The store owner i......
-
Welker v. Kennecott Copper Co.
...an independent contractor is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor or his employees. McGuire v. Valley National Bank of Phoenix, 94 Ariz. 50, 381 P.2d 588 [1963]; § 409 of the Restatement of Torts. There is no contention other than that the relationship between the par......