Pruitt v. Timme, 38556
| Decision Date | 29 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 38556,38556 |
| Citation | 349 P.2d 4,1959 OK 276 |
| Parties | Lorena A. PRUITT, Plaintiff in Error, v. Carl A. TIMME and Ed K. Ellis, d/b/a Ed K. Ellis Company, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The first prerequisite in an action of legal cognizance to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by an invitee upon premises in an accident allegedly caused by unsafe means of ingress and egress is to establish primary or actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.
2. Generally, an invitation to enter premises carries with it the duty toward the persons invited to provide reasonably safe means of ingress and egress, and to provide reasonably safe passages to and from such places as are included within the scope of the invitation.
3. The facts of each particular case are, of course, controlling upon the question of negligence in respect of a dangerous condition upon the permises, and ordinarily the question of whether an owner or occupant has been negligent in this respect toward a person whom the owner or occupant has invited upon the premises is to be decided by the jury. In such cases, as in other cases, however, if there is no dispute as to the facts and only one conclusion can be drawn from the evidence, the court can decide the question as a matter of law.
4. As a matter of law, absence of handrails from an ordinary stairway, walled on both sides, is not actionable negligence, though such condition may be termed improper construction practice.
5. An apartment owner is not liable to an invited guest of one of his tenants who, knowing that a stairway is unlighted, attempts to use it and falls and is injured by reason of the lack of lighting.
6. Record examined and held, that plaintiff failed to establish primary or actionable negligence on the part of the defendants, and by reason thereof the trial judge properly instructed a verdict for defendants.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Eben L. Taylor, Judge.
Action for damages for personal injuries. From an instructed verdict and judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Floyd L. Walker, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Rosenstein, Fist & Mesirow, Tulsa, for defendant in error Carl A. Timme.
Rucker, Tabor & Cox, Joseph M. Best, O. H. (Pat) O'Neal, Tulsa, for defendant in error Ed K. Ellis Co.
This action was brought by Lorena A. Pruitt against Carl A. Timme, a non-resident owner of an apartment house located in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Ed K. Ellis, as local manager of the apartment house, to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained by her when she, on the night of November 7, 1957, entered the premises for the purpose of visiting friends living in a basement apartment. She alleged that she was unfamiliar with the premises, and that as she entered the doorway she fell down the unlighted stairs and was injured. She further alleged that the doorway opened directly onto the stairs; that the stairs were not equipped with handrails; that there was no light burning inside the building; that said conditions were contrary to good building practices, and that the defendants knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known that each of said conditions created a dangerous and hazardous condition; that she was injured as a direct and proximate result of said conditions brought about by the defendants' negligence.
Defendants answered separately and denied generally the plaintiff's allegations, and as a defense alleged unavoidable casualty and plaintiff's contributory negligence.
Plaintiff's evidence adduced at the trial reasonably tended to establish her allegations.
The trial judge sustained the defendants' demurrer to the evidence and motion for directed verdict and directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendants,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thomas v. EZ Mart Stores, Inc., 98979
...satisfy the landowner's duty to such entrants. Jack Healey Linen Service Co. v. Travis, 1967 OK 213, 434 P.2d 924, 928; Pruitt v. Timme, 1959 OK 276, 349 P.2d 4, 5-6. ¶14 E-Z Mart argues that opinions discussing a landowner's non-delegable duties to invitees do not apply to E-Z Mart. This i......
-
Scott v. Archon Group, L.P.
...v. Travis, 1967 OK 213, ¶ 0, 434 P.2d 924; Henryetta Construction Co. v. Harris, 1965 OK 88, ¶ 11, 408 P.2d 522, 28 A.L.R.3d 876; Pruitt v. Timme, 1959 OK 276, ¶ 8, 349 P.2d 6. Phelps v. Hotel Management, Inc., see note 3, supra at ¶ 17; Roach v. Atlas Life Ins., 1989 OK 27, ¶ 15, 769 P.2d ......
-
Boudreaux v. Sonic Industries, Inc.
...majority states that it is axiomatic and that Sonic owes a duty of care toward Ms. Cobb as its customer and invitee and cites Pruitt v. Timme, 349 P.2d 4 (Okl.1960). In Pruitt the Supreme Court recognized the general duty toward invitees to provide reasonably safe means of ingress and egres......
-
Brown v. Alliance Real Estate Group
...v. Dixon, Okl., 408 P.2d 339; Herndon v. Paschal, Okl., 410 P.2d 549; Sullins v. Mills, supra, [Okl., 395 P.2d 787 (1964) ] Pruitt v. Timme, Okl., 349 P.2d 4. Buck, 1967 OK 81, pp 21, 22, 431 P.2d at ¶4 Apparently, the district court regarded the rule of Buck as an inflexible and absolute r......