Merkley v. Schramm
| Decision Date | 13 May 1966 |
| Citation | 31 Wis.2d 134,142 N.W.2d 173 |
| Parties | Laura MERKLEY, Appellant, v. Maxine SCHRAMM et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Edward Rudolph, Milwaukee, for appellant.
Kluwin, Dunphy, Hankin & Hayes, Milwaukee, for Maxine Schramm.
Dean S. Cady, Milwaukee, for Richard Schramm.
To begin with it is necessary to consider appellant's contention that the trial court did not comply with the provisions of sec. 270.33, Stats., 1 in that he did not render and file his decision on the cause within the 60-day period prescribed by the statute. Although the court's decision dismissing plaintiff's complaint against Richard Schramm was made directly from the bench at the close of testimony on December 10, 1964, his decision was not made dismissing plaintiff's complaint against Maxine Schramm until May 10, 1965. The findings of fact mention that briefs were filed and there is a statement by counsel that the briefs were in the hands of the court before Christmas. Thus it is apparent as to this part of the case the trial court did not comply with the provisions of sec. 270.33. The provision concerning the 60 days within which a decision should be filed has been held to be only directive. 2 Accordingly, it was not error here to file the court's tardy decision. Although such a delay under the circumstances was not error, for the sound administration of justice, we repeat what we said in Kamuchey v. Trzesniewski 3:
'strict compliance with this section is of a great help to the litigants and to an appellate court.' 4
The trial court's decisions, and findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were couched in term of a failure by appellant to meet her burden of proof, will be interpreted, for purposes of this opinion, as a positive determination that under the circumstances (1) Maxine Schramm was not negligent either in regard to a safe-place violation or at common law, and (2) Richard Schramm was not negligent. Thus, two issues are raised on this appeal.
First: Is the trial court's determination that Maxine Schramm was not guilty of negligence (1) under the safe-place statute, or (2) at common law, against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence?
Second: Is the trial court's determination that Richard Schramm was not negligent against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence?
Maxine Schramm's Negligence Under Safe-Place Statute.
It is well settled that the failure to properly light a building or a part thereof subject to the safe-place statute constitutes a violation of the statute. 5 Any negligence on the part of Maxine Schramm under the safe-place law must arise out of inadequate lighting in the hallway. On searching the record the following summarizes the pertinent testimony.
Two policemen who had gone to the rooming house to aid appellant after the fall, and the plaintiff, all testified that the hall was dimly lit. Thomas Dustin, a consulting electrical engineer, took a light measurement at a point directly below the light fixture and directly above the spot where the mishap occurred. The measurement was 2.9 foot candles with a 25 watt bulb. There was testimony by the plaintiff that the bulb was either 25 or 40 watts. Twelve feet down the hall toward Richard Schramm's room the reading was .097 foot candles. Dustin testified that the lighting was inadequate under the circumstances. When asked how this hallway could be made reasonably safe he said: 'I would say it is not reasonably safe.' He admitted that someone standing at the beginning of the hallway near Schramm's room could see a person in front of appellant's room. Harry Meinel, an inspector with the Milwaukee health department, knew of no complaints received by the department in regard to the lighting in the rooming house. Stanley Studer, another inspector, stated that although an inspection he made of the premises on January 25, 1963, was more particularly directed toward sanitary conditions, he would have noted any lighting deficiency had one existed.
The trial court impliedly found that the hallway was as safe as the nature of the premises reasonably permitted. That finding is not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence, unless the situation compels a finding that there was a violation of the lighting provisions of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances which provide:
'(1) In all buildings and structures, except dwellings, row dwellings and multiple family buildings, all public pathways and stairways and all parts thereof, shall be lighted with natural or artificial lighting having an intensity of not less than two and one-half foot candles at the floor line.
'(3) In every building which accommodates four or more families or thirty persons, and in every building which accommodates transients, the public pathways and stairways shall be lighted at all times with artificial lighting as regulated in paragraph one, except that such artificial lighting may be omitted from sunrise to sunset where adequate natural lighting is provided.' 6
Although the ordinance requires 'all parts' of the subject buildings to be lighted to the prescribed intensity, for there to be a safe-place violation based on an ordinance infraction, the violation must be connected with the accident and the inadequate lighting must be at the time and place where the accident occurred. In Ruplinger v. Theiler 7 the plaintiff fell on a defective stairway, but it was determined that 'the accident or injury did not occur at the place where the defect existed.' 8
In the case at bar, Dr. Bussey testified:
'If he was looking straight ahead he wouldn't see what is in front of him at all or to the side near to him, he would see what was to the side above and below only in this 15 decree central area and the lighting affect wouldn't improve in his blind area at all no matter how bright the light was, there is no vision to the side or above in his blind vision.'
In other words, Richard Schramm did not see the plaintiff, not because of insufficient lighting but because of not tilting his telescope in such a way as to locate her in the scope of his 15 degree vision. The trial court concluded:
'Based on the medical testimony by Dr. Bussey it is quite evident that even though there would be more light in this hallway, that unless Richard Schramm was pointing his eyes at a particular point, he would be unable to see outside of the 15 degree range of his vision.'
Thus there was evidence to support the trial court's determination that the plaintiff had failed to meet her burden of proof under the safe-place law. Putting it another way, the evidence supports a determination by the court that the accident or injury occurred at a point where the defective lighting did not exist. This determination is not against the great weight and clear preponderance of the evidence and must be affirmed.
If there is no breach of the higher degree of care required in safe-place matters, respondent Maxine Schramm cannot have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stenklyft
...450 N.W.2d 249 (1990); Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Serv. Comm., 82 Wis. 2d 565, 571, 263 N.W.2d 214 (1978); Merkley v. Schramm, 31 Wis. 2d 134, 138, 142 N.W.2d 173 (1966); Kamuchey v. Trzesniewski, 8 Wis. 2d 94, 100, 98 N.W.2d 403 (1959); Galewski v. Noe, 266 Wis. 7, 16, 62 N.W.2d 703 (......
-
Hoeft v. Friedel
...to take whatever precautions a similarly situated person would consider reasonable under the circumstances. See: Merkley v. Schramm (1966), 31 Wis.2d 134, 142 N.W.2d 173. We believe that a jury issue was presented as to whether Mary Friedel was negligent as to speed prior to the emergency a......
-
Megal v. VISITOR & CONVENTION BUREAU
...not prove a violation of the common-law negligence standard of care. Balas, 66 Wis.2d at 426-27, 225 N.W.2d 428; Merkley v. Schramm, 31 Wis.2d 134, 142, 142 N.W.2d 173 (1966); Lealiou v. Quatsoe, 15 Wis.2d 128, 136, 112 N.W.2d 193 (1961). Our discussion in Lealiou appears to be the first ti......
-
Low v. Siewert
...Lutheran Church (1930), 202 Wis. 111, 230 N.W. 708; Heiden v. Milwaukee (1937), 22l Wis.2d 92, 275 N.W. 922; Merkley v. Schramm (1966), 31 Wis.2d 134, 142 N.W.2d 173. ...