Pelton v. Schmidt

• Decision Date: 27 October 1893
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PELTON v. SCHMIDT et al.

56 N.W. 689

97 Mich. 231

PELTON v. SCHMIDT et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 27, 1893

Error to circuit court, Kent county; William E. Grove, Judge.

Action by James H. Pelton against Charles Schmidt and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Reversed.

Henry J. Felker, (Uhl & Crane, of counsel,) for appellants.

Morse McGarry & McKnight, for appellee.

HOOKER C.J.

The plaintiff, a teamster, after having delivered some merchandise at the back door of defendants' store started towards the desk, near the middle of the room, to get a receipt, and was injured by falling through a trapdoor into the cellar. The accompanying floor drawing will explain the situation of the premises (Image Omitted) As appears from the drawing, the trap, when not in use, was covered by double doors, a hole being left to permit the doors to shut around the pulley rope, which was suspended there. This pulley was used to raise and lower articles from and into the cellar below, and usually hung above the trap, which was in the end of the store, and in close proximity to the back doors, where it was the custom to receive goods. The plaintiff was familiar with the premises, having been there a number of times. He testified that he might have been there a hundred times, and might not. On the day of the accident, goods had been received, and were piled in front of the back doors, within the store, on the east side of, and up to the edge of, the trapdoor; and one of the defendants, and some clerks, were engaged in lowering them into the cellar. After lowering some down, they had all gone below to remove them, when plaintiff drove to the back door with some boxes of soap, which he put into the store, and then started to get a receipt, as stated. The goods constituted a barrier to a direct route to the desk, and plaintiff went west for a few feet between the goods and the wall, when, turning sharply around the corner of the pile of goods, he stepped into the hole. He testified on cross-examination as follows: "Question. How many doors do they have to this trapdoor? Answer. I don't know. Q. Do they have any elevator in there? A. I don't know that, either. Q. Do they have a rope and tackle above it? A. I don't know, sir. Q. How? A. I don't know. I never was in there. Q. Did you ever look for anything? A. No, sir; I never looked for any. Q. Did you ever notice how they got their goods down from the store floor below? A. I never did. I never knew whether they put them down there, or what they did. I never knew that they put their goods down cellar." He further said that it was dark in there. He says that he gave no notice of his arrival, but, in a hurry to go about his business, he took his delivery book, and started for the desk to get it receipted, having to go around the pile of goods as stated. Witness further said: "I saw the passageway. Q. Could you not see there was a hole there, in place of the passageway? A. No, sir. Q. Did you look to see whether there were any holes there, or anythingof the kind? A. No, sir; I did not. Q. Were you looking at your paper or your book? A. No, sir; I was not. Q. What were you looking at? A. I was looking at the front end of the store. Q. What were you looking there for? A. To get up to the desk to get a receipt for my goods. Q. Weren't you looking where you were walking? A. It was not necessary. Q. It was not necessary, and yet it was piled up there with boxes and goods and baskets? A. I looked to see that I didn't stumble over anything."

The drawing shows that in the extreme southeast corner of the store, and at a point most remote from the street, defendants had provided for the reception of goods through an alley, and a doorway some feet above the ground, without steps, by which to enter it. To dispose of the bulky goods to be stored, the cellar was used, and a trap door was provided, not immediately in front of the doors, but at one side of them. It was beyond the back end of the counters, and our attention is not called to any evidence that customers were ever invited to go there, or that they ever did so, or that it could possibly be approached from the front without being open to observation. It would be difficult to suggest a safer place for a trapdoor, which counsel for the plaintiff concede defendants' right to have and use. What duty did the defendants owe the plaintiff? He was a teamster who delivered goods there, for which it was his custom to require a receipt. He says that he was unfamiliar with the premises did not know of the existence of the hatchway or of the pulley, or of the practice of defendants in disposing of goods delivered at the door. He does not say that he was ever invited to enter the door, or to go to the desk for a receipt. He does not state that he had previously done so, or that any other person had been there. Aside from the inference that employes of defendants would naturally go there, we find nothing to indicate that any one was expected to walk through the store from the back door to the desk, or that an invitation was extended to any outsider to do so. Counsel for plaintiff, in their brief, cite pages of the record upon this point. Page 64 is silent upon the subject, while upon page 75 the witness is interrogated upon the course a person would necessarily take if he wanted to go from the door to the desk. A mistake in quoting from page 84 makes it...