Northern Trust Co. v. Elman, 6544.
| Citation | 72 F.2d 169 |
| Decision Date | 29 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 6544.,6544. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
| Parties | NORTHERN TRUST CO. v. ELMAN. |
H. E. Mau, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Pogue, Hoffheimer & Pogue, of Cincinnati, Ohio, R. H. Hildebrant, of Wilmington, Ohio, and J. A. Culbertson, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for appellant.
Robert S. Marx, of Cincinnati, Ohio (Nichols, Morrill, Wood, Marx & Ginter, of Cincinnati, Ohio, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.
The appellee recovered damages for personal injuries sustained in a fall through the floor of a show window in a storeroom belonging to the appellant's testate, Charles W. Murphy. Error is assigned to the judgment on the ground that the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant at the conclusion of all the evidence. The floor of the show window was made of glass, which was covered with linoleum having the appearance of hardwood flooring. When the appellee stepped upon the floor the glass gave way, and he was precipitated into the basement and received the injuries for which he sued. The proofs show that he had leased the storeroom by the day from James Murphy, a brother of the owner, at a rental rate of a hundred dollars a month. It is contended that James Murphy had no authority to make the lease, and that the arrangement with him did not give the appellee the right to enter the storeroom as lessee or invitee of the owner. We think the evidence conclusively shows that James Murphy was the agent of his brother in charge of the room, with authority to lease it. While he had not placed the linoleum on the floor, there was substantial evidence to show that he knew it was there and also knew that the floor was dangerous and might give way if any one attempted to walk on it. In these circumstances, it was for the jury to determine whether he was negligent in failing to warn the appellee of the danger. Bennett v. Railroad Co., 102 U. S. 577, 580, 26 L. Ed. 235.
It was not error to refuse to charge the jury that if appellee went upon the premises as an invitee of the Clinton Shoe Company, there could be no recovery. That company had occupied the room under lease for a period prior to the injury. The court charged the jury that unless it believed that the appellee entered the room as a tenant of the owner, the latter would not be liable for the injuries. This charge was broader than that requested by the appellant. It limited the appellee's right of use...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sezzin v. Stark
...... condition. . . In the. case of Northern Trust Co. v. Elman, 6 Cir., 72 F.2d. 169, whether appellant was ......
-
Chapman & Dewey Lumber Co. v. Hanks
...and falling with him, and falling off the pile, your verdict should be for defendant." As indicated by this court in Northern Trust Co. v. Elman, 6 Cir., 72 F.2d 169, we do not think that clarity required that appellant's alternative theory of the accident, i. e., that Hanks stepped in a cr......
-
Miller v. Brunson Const. Co.
...brought about by the work, particularly with respect to the ceiling or floor, was not obvious but deceptive in appearance. Northern Trust Co. v. Elman, 72 F.2d 169. Neither Sidney Weber nor the plaintiff told Brunson's employees that they would use the small parts department while the work ......
-
Et Ux. v. Stark., 17.
...the lessee and others lawfully on the land caused to them by this dangerous condition. In the case of Northern Trust Co. v. Elman, 6 Cir., 72 F.2d 169, whether appellant was negligent in failing to warn appellee of the danger in the floor of a show window in store-room leased by appellee wa......