Ober v. Golden Rule

• Decision Date: 16 July 1920
• Docket Number: No. 21846.,21846.
• Parties: OBER v. THE GOLDEN RULE.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

146 Minn. 347

178 N.W. 586

OBER

v.THE GOLDEN RULE.

No. 21846.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 16, 1920.

Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; O. B. Lewis, Judge.

Action by Olga Ober against the Golden Rule, a corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, it appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

A shopkeeper is under legal obligation to keep and maintain his premises in reasonably safe condition for use as to all whom he expressly or impliedly invites to enter the premises.

The evidence did not require the jury to find that defendant was not guilty of negligence or that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, and the court property denied its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. K. A. Campbell and B. Burness, both of Minneapolis, for appellant.

J. N. Nicholsen, of Austin, for respondent.

LEES, C.

Appeal from a judgment entered after an order denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in an action brought for the recovery of damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff under the following circumstances;

On March 8, 1919, between 9 and 10 o'clock in the forenoon, plaintiff went to defendant's store to examine curtain goods then on display and exhibited to customers in the following manner: Bolts of goods were laid or tables arranged in two parallel rows. The space between the two rows was about eight feet. In examining goods, customers could walk on either side of the tables. In the space between the tables there were three display racks or frames, constructed to represent windows with curtains hung in place. Plaintiff began to look at goods on one of the end tables, going into the space between the two rows for that purpose. When she reached the end of the table and was in the act of moving on to the next one in the same row, she tripped upon the foot of one of the frames and was injured. She testified that a drape of some sort concealed the base of the frame, but admitted that she neither saw this portion of the frame nor looked at the floor as she moved along. She also testified that she noticed the frame before she fell, knew it rested on the floor, but did not know how it was constructed. The frame was 7 or 8 feet high and about 4 1/2 feet wide. Its bases were 3 feet long, 7 inches wide, and 3 1/2 inches high, and were attached to and projected at right angles beyond the sides of the frame, so that each side with its base resembled the letter T inverted. The frames were mahogany colored, the floor was of birch considerably lighter in color than the frames, and the room was well lighted. The frame where plaintiff fell stood in a slanting position close to the table where she was, about 1 1/2 feet from it as she estimated it.

We are asked to reverse on two grounds: (1) That it conclusively appears that defendant was not guilty of any negligence; (2) that it conclusively appears that plaintiff was herself guilty of contributory negligence.

[1][2] There is no dispute about the law of the case. A shopkeeper is under legal obligation to keep and maintain his premises in reasonably safe condition for use as to all...