Perkins v. Springhill General Hospital

• Decision Date: 30 May 1973
• Docket Number: No. 12093,12093
• Citation: Perkins v. Springhill General Hospital, 278 So.2d 900 (La. App. 1973)
• Parties: Dr. L. E. PERKINS et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SPRINGHILL GENERAL HOSPITAL et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 900

278 So.2d 900

Dr. L. E. PERKINS et ux., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.SPRINGHILL GENERAL HOSPITAL et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 12093.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

May 30, 1973.

Mayer & Smith by Caldwell Roberts, Shreveport, for defendants-appellants.

McConnell & McConnell by Charles E. McConnell, Springhill, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before AYRES, PRICE and HALL, JJ.

PRICE, Judge.

This is a suit for damages for personal injuries and medical expenses arising out of a slip and fall sustained by Mrs. Lois Perkins at the Springhill General Hospital on March 28, 1972.Mrs. Perkins, joined by her husband, Dr. L. E. Perkins, named as defendants the hospital and its liability insurer, St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company.

Plaintiffs allege Mrs. Perkins slipped and fell in the corridor of the east wing of the hospital while visiting her mother who was a patient therein.They contend her fall was caused by the slick surface of the floor in the hall, made more hazardous by the presence of water or moisture thereon at the time of the accident.The most serious allegations of negligence charged to the hospital causing the fall are:

1.Maintaining a floor with such a highly polished and slick surface and allowing water and moisture to accumulate thereon.

2.Failure to place mats or other devices on the floor at the entranceway to enable persons entering the building to remove water and moisture from their feet.

Defendants deny any negligence on the part of the hospital and altermatively plead contributory negligence against Mrs. Perkins as a bar to plaintiffs' recovery.

The trial court found the accident was caused solely by the negligence of the hospital and rendered judgment against defendants in solido, awarding Mrs. Perkins the sum of $2,500 and her husband $254.50 for medical expenses paid on her behalf.

On this appeal defendants contend the trial judge erred in finding that Mrs. Perkins slipped on water or moisture which had accumulated in the hall, in finding the hospital negligent, and in failing to sustain the plea of contributory negligence.

Although the evidence is conflicting as to whether Mrs. Perkins' fall was caused by the presence of water on the of the east wing of the hospital, which is a and evaluated the credibility of the witnesses, found the preponderance of the evidence to establish the floor was wet and that this condition caused the fall.We find no manifest error in this finding of fact.The room occupied by Mrs. Perkins' mother was the end room on the north side of te east wing of the hospital, which is a one-story building.The evidence shows the doorway of this room to be only a few steps from the outside entrance of the east wing.The corridor floor is of terrazzo construction.On the date of the accident it had rained intermittently throughout the day and the testimony established that water was tracked into the corridor on the feet of persons coming into the hospital by way of the east wing entrance door.Customarily a large mat (4 by 6 ) is placed just inside the entrance door to permit persons entering the hospital in wet weather to clean the moisture from their shoes as they walk in.On this date, however, there was no mat at this entranceway.

Mrs. Perkins testified that late in the afternoon while she was staying with her mothershe started from the room to catch her brother, who had just left, to give him a message.She further testified that as she walked into the hall she paused to see which direction her brother had taken.She started to her left toward the east entrance door and suddenly lost her footing.She fell to the floor in a sitting position and struck a flower pot situated on the north wall of the corridor.She testified that the floor of the corridor was wet at the time she fell.

Mrs. Joe Bell, sister-in-law of Mrs. Perkins, testified she saw the accident from where she was seated on a cot in the same room which Mrs. Perkins was visiting.Mrs. Bell was employed by the hospital as a nurse and supervisor of this area of the hospital.She fixed the location of the fall directly in front of the room door.She further testified she examined the floor area and found no water or moisture at the point of the fall.However, there is some variance between Mrs. Bell's location of the exact place of the fall and that established by Mrs. Perkins.It is to be noted that Mrs. Bell's examination of the floor was made some time after Mrs. Perkins had been taken to the emergency room in a wheel chair.

Mrs. Perkins' testimony that the floor in the area of the fall was wet was corroborated by several witnesses who entered the hospital through the east wing prior to the time of the accident and noticed the wet condition of the floor for some distance down the corridor.We are of the opinion that the evidence as a whole substantiates Mrs . Perkins' version that she slipped because of the wet condition of the floor.

We do not find any error in the trial court's conclusion that the hospital was negligent in failing to exercise the necessary precautions for the safety of its invitees under the circumstances.

'The duty of an occupier of premises to an invitee is to exercise reasonable or ordinary care for his safety commensurate with the particular circumstances involved.'Levert v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 140 So.2d 811(Al.App.3d Cir.1962).

We find the evidence to clearly establish the hospital had knowledge that the terrazzo floor involved herein was a hazard to persons walking on it when its surface was wet or damp.The hospital...