Mullen v. McGeagh

• Decision Date: 08 July 1926
• Docket Number: 3-1926
• Citation: 88 Pa.Super. 381
• Parties: Mullen v. McGeagh, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

88 Pa.Super. 381

Mullen v. McGeagh, Appellant

No. 3-1926

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

July 8, 1926

Argued April 26, 1926

Appeal by Joseph S. McGeagh, from judgment of C. P. Allegheny County-1923, No. 1200, in the case of Anna L. Mullen v Joseph S. McGeagh and John D. McGeagh.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Macfarlane J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $ 1,100 and judgment thereon. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was refusal of defendant's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto.

Charles W. Jones, for appellant.

William J. Askin, Jr., for appellee.

Before Porter, P. J., Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn, Gawthrop and Cunningham, JJ.

OPINION

HENDERSON J.

That the plaintiff sustained a serious injury when she fell in descending the stairway in the McGeagh building is shown by sufficient evidence. It is not controverted that she was lawfully on the stairway. She had attended a meeting on the fourth floor in a hall leased by a mute society at which a lecture was delivered and was returning therefrom when she fell. She had gone to the hall in an elevator provided by the owners for the accommodation of tenants in the building, a seven-story structure occupied as offices and for other purposes. There is evidence that the elevator was not in operation at the time the exercises were concluded in the lecture hall, for which reason the plaintiff and a number of other persons attending the meeting found it necessary to walk down a stairway located near the elevator shaft. In the construction of the stairs from the second to the first floor there were four " winders" with triangular treads having a width of about seventeen inches next to the wall and tapering to a point at what was described as the newel post. At the right as the plaintiff descended there was a handrail of which she took hold. As stated by her and other witnesses the stairway was dimly lighted or dark and in making the first or second step in her descent, she lost her footing on the tapering tread and sustained the injury complained of. This absence of sufficient light to enable her to safely descend the stairs was the principal ground of complaint. That it was the duty of the defendant to afford a convenient and reasonably safe means of exit from the building is not disputed. The duty was recognized in the provision of the elevator and the maintenance of the stairway. If, as the plaintiff testified, the elevator was not in operation, her only means of departure from the building was down the stairs. She never had gone that way before and was entitled to such illumination of the passage as would afford her a reasonable opportunity to observe the peculiar structure of the steps and to enable her to avoid risk and injury in her descent. The principal controversy between the parties on the merits of the case was on the subject of light on the stairway, the plaintiff contending that it was inadequately lighted, and the defendant asserting that the lights described by him were sufficient for the purpose. A photograph of the place of the accident and of the construction of part of the stairs was exhibited to the jury. The description of some of the witnesses for the plaintiff explained that light was shut off from the stairway by a contiguous part of the building. As the stairway was placed in the building for the accommodation of tenants, it is not to be doubted that it was the duty of the landlord to sufficiently light it for use at night by the many tenants. The finding of the jury was against the defendant on this issue as well as on the second that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The charge of the court with respect to both of them was clear and fair.

The other defense presented related to the pleadings. The record shows that service was had on Joseph S. McGeagh and there was a return of non est inventus as to the other defendant. It was...