Noll v. Marian

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: DREW, Justice.
• Citation: 32 A.2d 18,347 Pa. 213
• Decision Date: 26 May 1943
• Parties: NOLL v. MARIAN et al.

347 Pa. 213
32 A.2d 18

NOLL
v.
MARIAN et al.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 12, 1943.
Rehearing Denied May 26, 1943.

Appeal No. 110, January term, 1943, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 2 (tried in Common Pleas No. 7), Philadelphia County, March term, 1941, No. 3636; Crumlish, Judge.

Trespass for personal injuries by Mathias H. Noll against Michael G. Marian and others, individually and trading as the Marian Bank. Verdict for plaintiff for $10,000. From a judgment for defendants non obstante veredicto, plaintiff appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

Before MAXEY, C. J., and DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, and PARKER, Jj.

Bellwoar & Rich, Theodore G. Rich, George M. Neil, Bell, Murdoch, Paxson & Green, all of Philadelphia, for appellant.

Michael A. Foley, of Philadelphia, for appellees.

DREW, Justice.

Plaintiff, a depositor in The Marian Bank, a private institution owned by defendants in the City of Philadelphia, went there on the morning of December 20, 1940, to withdraw money for use in his business. Very shortly after his arrival and while he stood before the teller's window

32 A.2d 19

with his back toward the door from the street, he heard voices announce: ‘It's a holdup. Nobody should move.’ Plaintiff obeyed and stood perfectly still. Snyder, the teller, who was waiting upon him, after what seemed to plaintiff an interval of eight or ten seconds, grabbed something from the counter and instantly dropped out of sight. The bandits immediately fired three shots in Snyder's direction; two of them lodged in the furniture, and the third struck plaintiff in the hip, causing the injuries for which damages are sought. After a verdict in favor of plaintiff, the learned court below set it aside and entered judgment notwithstanding in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appealed.

The grievance charged is that defendants' servant was negligent in failing to obey the instructions of the holdupmen, and that the damages sustained were the direct consequence of such negligence. The learned counsel for plaintiff thus summarized plaintiff's position: ‘The failure of the defendants' employee to stand still after the warning of the robbers, when he knew or should have realized that action on his part might cause the robbers to shoot and when he knew or should have realized that the plaintiff was in danger, was a failure to observe that degree of care, precaution and vigilence which the circumstances demanded.'

To begin, defendants' duty in the premises is clear. It is aptly set forth in Sinn v. Farmers Deposit Savings Bank, 300 Pa. 85, 89, 150 A. 163, 164: ‘Plaintiff as a customer of the bank was present by its implied invitation. In other words, he was an invitee, to whom the bank owed the same duty as a shopkeeper owes to his customer, which is to use reasonable care for his protection.’ It is charged that defendants failed to afford plaintiff a reasonably safe place for the...