Morris v. Prati

• Citation: 163 A.2d 552
• Decision Date: 25 August 1960
• Docket Number: No. 2578.,2578.
• Parties: Elizabeth S. MORRIS, Appellant, v. Marta PRATI, trading as Aldo Cafe, and District of Columbia, a municipal corporation, Appellees.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

Page 552

163 A.2d 552

Elizabeth S. MORRIS, Appellant, v. Marta PRATI, trading as Aldo Cafe, and District of Columbia, a municipal corporation, Appellees.

No. 2578.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued June 13, 1960.

Decided August 25, 1960.

Sidney A. Cohen, Washington, D. C., with whom Joseph D. Bulman, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant.

Denver H. Graham, Washington, D. C., with whom Albert E. Brault, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee Prati.

John R. Hess, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., with whom Chester H. Gray, Corp. Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee District of Columbia.

Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

HOOD, Associate Judge.

During a snowfall on March 19, 1958, appellant and her escort entered Aldo Cafe, which is owned and operated by appellee Prati. About two hours later they left the restaurant and by that time the snow had changed to sleet and rain and there was an accumulation of two to three inches of sleet and snow on the street and sidewalk. While her escort was getting his automobile, appellant waited for him under a canopy at the top of the steps which led down to the restaurant. She then took one to three steps towards the curb, suddenly lost her footing, fell and was injured.

Appellant sued Prati and the District of Columbia on the theory that they, either jointly or separately, had been negligent in maintaining a defectively paved sidewalk or the area adjacent thereto, and allowing it to be covered with an accumulation of sleet, snow and slush. At the close of appellant's evidence the trial court directed a verdict in favor of both defendants. Appellant claims this was error.

Although the complaint alleged a defectively paved sidewalk, no evidence was offered to sustain this claim; and the case must be viewed as one where the sole cause of plaintiff's slipping and falling was the accumulated snow, sleet and slush.¹

The directed verdict in favor of the District of Columbia was clearly correct. Surely the District of Columbia is not an insurer of all pedestrians who use the public sidewalks and streets in the midst of a snowstorm. As was said in Smith v. District of Columbia, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 7, 10, 189 F.2d 671, 674, 39 A.L.R.2d 773, 779, the municipality "cannot be held liable for injuries due to snow or ice as or just after the snow has fallen or the ice formed and when the city has had no opportunity to correct dangerous conditions thus created." Indeed, it would seem that the District is liable only for a condition which is "dangerous and unusual in some way other than the original general slipperiness caused by the weather conditions," and then only after notice and reasonable opportunity to treat or remove the unusual condition. Campbell v. District of Columbia, 100 U.S. App.D.C. 120, 125, 243 F.2d 226, 231.

With respect to the restaurant...