Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co.
| Decision Date | 14 October 1930 |
| Citation | 232 N.W. 595,202 Wis. 289 |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
| Parties | PETTRIC v. GRIDLEY DAIRY CO. (TWO CASES). |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeals from judgments of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Otto H. Breidenbach, Circuit Judge. Reversed.
Separate actions by Catherine Pettric and Victor F. Pettric, plaintiffs, commenced on the 5th day of March, 1928, against the Gridley Dairy Company, defendants, to recover damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by Catherine Pettric. From judgments in favor of the defendant Gridley Dairy Company dated August 23, 1929, the plaintiffs severally appeal.Carroll & Thekan, of Milwaukee, for appellants.
Hayes, Coleman, McCauley & Hayes, of Milwaukee (James E. Coleman, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondent.
The defendant Gridley Dairy Company is a manufacturer and distributor of dairy products in the city of Milwaukee. As a part of its advertising plan, it extended invitations to various women societies and associations from time to time to visit its central plant. On April 21, 1927, pursuant to one of such invitations, the St. Sebastian's School Parents' & Teachers' Association of the city of Milwaukee visited said plant. The plaintiff Catherine Pettric, a member of said association, visited said plant on said date. Shortly before noon the group was taken to the fourth floor by means of a freight elevator and conducted into a dining room where a lecture was given and a lunch was served. This room was placed at the disposal of the visitors for the afternoon for the playing of cards and other social indulgences. Mrs. Pettric did not remain for the afternoon functions and left the dining room after luncheon. Upon leaving the dining room she entered a hallway which was dark. She found her way to a washroom on the opposite side of the hall which was also dark. She turned on an electric light in the washroom, and when she returned to the hallway the electric light in the washroom enabled her to see a sign on the opposite side of the hall, reading “This way,” with an arrow pointing to a stairway leading down to the floor below. The stairway was dark, and the steps were wet, greasy, and slippery. She followed the directions of the sign and proceeded down the stairway. After proceeding a short distance she slipped and fell and bumped down the steps to the bottom of the stairway, sustaining personal injuries.
Both she and her husband brought actions to recover their respective damages resulting from such injuries. The actions were tried together and were argued together in this court. The same special verdict was submitted, and the court made the same disposition thereof in each action, so that exactly the same questions are involved in both. In our discussion we will give attention only to the case of Catherine Pettric.
Section 101.06, Stats., provides that The application of this statute to the situation, in part at least, was recognized by the trial court, in obedience to which there was propounded to the jury the question, “Did the defendant fail to construct the stairway in question with respect to the lighting thereof in such manner as to render the same safe?” The jury answered this question, “No,” and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant. In the opinion of the trial court, this answer absolved the defendant from any liability so far as the safe place statute was concerned. The court, however, propounded the further question, “Did the defendant fail to maintain the stairway in question at the time and place in question with respect to the lighting thereof in such manner as to render the same safe?” The jury answered this question, “Yes,” and also found that such failure was the proximate cause of Catherine Pettric's injury. In an opinion disposing of motions after verdict, the court held that the latter question related only to the common-law duty of the defendant, and that, because the evidence did not show that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the improper lighting of the stairway, its liability was not shown, under the cases of Lundgren v. Gimbel Bros., 191 Wis. 521, 210 N. W. 678, and Kaszubowski v. Johnson S. Co., 151 Wis. 149, 138 N. W. 54. This case was tried before the case of Wilson v. Evangelical Lutheran Church, 230 N. W. 708, 710, was decided by this court, in which it was held that the question of whether the safe place statute required the maintenance of a light in a stairway somewhat similar in a church was at least a jury question, and that a complaint showing the absence of such a light was not demurrable.
[1][2] It will be noticed that the statute requires every employer to furnish a place of employment which shall be safe for employees and frequenters thereof, and that he shall, not only construct, but that he shall repair and maintain, such place of employment in such a manner as to render the same safe. The evidence in the case as well as the verdict of the jury negatives any defect in the structure of this stairway. So far as light is concerned, the evidence shows that lights were provided at the head as well as at the foot of these stairs, so that structural defects may be laid out of the case. The evidence was quite sufficient to justify a finding that these lights were not on at the time the plaintiff went down the stairway. The safe place statute, section 101.06, Stats., requires the employer not only to construct, but to maintain, a place of employment that shall be safe. The defendant, therefore, had not discharged its entire duty under the safe place statute by providing electric bulbs in this stairway. It was its duty to maintain lights in said stairway...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Megal v. VISITOR & CONVENTION BUREAU
...should not be imputed to a legislative act in the absence of an unequivocal declaration of such purpose. Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co., 202 Wis. 289, 292-93, 232 N.W. 595 (1930). ¶ 21. Strack created an exception to the ordinary notice rules. The exception, however, is very narrow. It has on......
-
Barry v. Employers Mut. Cas. Co.
...associated with the structure, this court has grafted a notice requirement onto the safe place statute. Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co., 202 Wis. 289, 293, 232 N.W. 595 (1930). In Pettric the court imported common law notice principles into the safe place statute context, concluding that in or......
-
Flodin v. United States
...a failure to maintain the structure in its original integrity." Id. For that proposition the court cited Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co., 202 Wis. 289, 232 N.W. 595 (1930), in which the court held in a case under the Safe Place statute that the trial court should have allowed the jury to consi......
-
Low v. Siewert
...issue in this case. But even under the safe-place law, an owner is not an insurer of the safety of the building. Pettric v. Gridley Dairy Co. (1930), 202 Wis. 289, 232 N.W. 595; Zernia v. Capitol Court Corp. (1963), 21 Wis.2d 164, 170a, 125 N.W.2d 705; Carr v. Amusement, Inc. (1970), 47 Wis......