Raylass Chain Stores v. Dejarnette

• Decision Date: 17 January 1935
• Citation: 163 Va. 938
• Parties: RAYLASS CHAIN STORES, INC. v. GLADYS A. DEJARNETTE.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 938

163 Va. 938

RAYLASS CHAIN STORES, INC. v. GLADYS A. DEJARNETTE.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

January 17, 1935.

Present, All the Justices.

1. NEGLIGENCE — Store Customer Injured in Fall Down Stairs — Duty Owing to Customer as Invitee — Case at Bar. — In the instant case plaintiff was injured when she fell down a stairway in defendant's store. The stairway was at the rear of the store with a landing, about six inches below the level of the floor and of the same color, leading to it. Merchandise on high racks or fixtures completely hid the stairway from the view of one approaching from the front of the store and although there was an electric light at the head of the stairway, it was not burning. Plaintiff entered the store to purchase some oilcloth and was directed by the clerk to follow her to the rear of the store to select it. The clerk then requested plaintiff to step back while the oilcloth was cut and plaintiff did so and fell down the stairway. Plaintiff stated that she had never before been in the vicinity of the stairway and was unaware of its existence.

Held: That plaintiff's status was that of an invitee, to whom the owner or occupant of the building owed the duty of having the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to give warning of latent or concealed defects.

2. NEGLIGENCE — Invitee — Duty Owed Invitee by Owner or Occupant of Building. — When the owner or occupant of lands or buildings either expressly or impliedly invites others to come upon his premises, whether for business or any other purpose, it is the duty of the owner or occupant to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them into danger, and therefore it is incumbent upon him to exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit.

3. NEGLIGENCE — Customer of Store Injured in Fall Down Stairs — Duty of Employee to Warn of Danger — Case at Bar. — In the instant case plaintiff was injured when she fell down a stairway in defendant's store. The stairway was at the rear of the store, with a landing, about six inches below the floor level and of the same color, leading to it. Merchandise on high racks in front of the landing completely hid the stairway from the view of one approaching from the front of the store. There was no light burning over the landing. Plaintiff entered the store to buy some oilcloth and was directed by a clerk to follow her to the rear of the store and select the piece she wished. The clerk then requested plaintiff to step back while the oilcloth was cut and plaintiff did so and fell down the stairway. Plaintiff had never before been in the vicinity of the stairway and was not aware of its existence. The jury was accorded a view of the premises and rendered a verdict for the plaintiff.

Held: That plaintiff had a right to accompany defendant's employee to the rear of the store and it was the duty of the employee to warn plaintiff of the danger from the concealed stairway.

4. NEGLIGENCE — Customer of Store Injured in Fall Down Stairs — Stairway Concealed by Racks of Merchandise — Question for Jury — Case at Bar. — In the instant case plaintiff was injured when she fell down a stairway in defendant's store. The stairway was at the rear of the store, with a landing, about six inches below the floor level and of the same color, leading to it. Merchandise on high racks in front of the landing completely hid the stairway from the view of one approaching from the front of the store. There was no light burning over the landing. Plaintiff entered the store to buy some oilcloth and was directed by a clerk to follow her to the rear of the store and select the piece she wished. The clerk then requested plaintiff to step back while the oilcloth was cut and plaintiff did so and fell down the stairway. Plaintiff had never before been in the vicinity of the stairway and was not aware of its existence. The jury was accorded a view of the premises and rendered a verdict for the plaintiff.

Held: That it was purely a jury question as to whether or not the placing of the merchandise upon the racks constituted negligence. Certainly it cannot be stated as a matter of law that fair-minded men might not differ upon the question of negligence.

5. NEGLIGENCE — Question for Jury. — The question of negligence or due care is one peculiarly within the province of the jury and cannot be established as a matter of law by a state of facts, about which reasonably fair-minded men may differ.

6. NEGLIGENCE — Store Customer Injured in Fall Down Stairs — Contributory Negligence — Question for Jury — Right of Plaintiff to Rely on Defendant's Discharge of Duty — Case at Bar. — In the instant case plaintiff was injured when she fell down a stairway in defendant's store. The stairway was at the rear of the store, with a landing, about six inches below the floor level and of the same color, leading to it. Merchandise on high racks in front of the landing completely hid the stairway from the view of one approaching from the front of the store. There was no light burning over the landing. Plaintiff entered the store to buy some oilcloth and was directed by a clerk to follow her to the rear of the store and select the piece she wished. The clerk then requested plaintiff to step back while the oilcloth was cut and plaintiff did so and fell down the stairway. Plaintiff had never before been in the vicinity of the stairway and was not aware of its existence. Defendant contended that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, "that she did not look to see where she was going." The jury viewed the premises and a verdict was rendered for plaintiff.

Held: That the question of plaintiff's contributory negligence was for the jury. She visited defendant's store for the purpose of purchasing merchandise and she had a right to rely on the legal discharge by the defendant of the duty it owed her, as an invitee, to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of concealed defects.

7. JUDICIAL NOTICE — Efforts of Merchants as to Display of Merchandise. — It is a matter of common knowledge that in this period of keen competition merchants put forth every effort to display their wares and merchandise in the most attractive manner, and the main point in the scheme is to attract the attention of the shopper.

8. NEGLIGENCE — Store Customer Injured in Fall Down Stairs — Evidence as to Statements by Clerk after Accident — Admissibility — Case at Bar. — In the instant case plaintiff was injured by falling down a stairway in defendant's store. The stairway, located at the rear of the store, was reached by a landing about six inches below the floor level and merchandise on high racks in front of this landing completely concealed the stairway from the view of those approaching from the front of the store. Plaintiff entered the store to purchase some oilcloth and was directed by a clerk to follow her to the rear of the store to select it. When requested by the clerk to step back while the oilcloth was cut, plaintiff did so and fell down the stairway. The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff and it was assigned as error that the trial court permitted plaintiff to introduce evidence that the clerk stated after the accident that she had been expecting some one to fall down the steps. On cross-examination the clerk denied making the statement and plaintiff was recalled and testified without objection that the clerk had made the statement. Plaintiff's husband testified, over objection, that the statement was made to him about an hour after the accident. Defendant had relied in great part on the clerk's evidence to establish plaintiff's contributory negligence.

Held: No error. No effort was made to introduce the statement as a part of the res gestae or as binding upon the defendant. It was simply an effort to introduce evidence affecting the credibility of the witness.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Halifax county, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for damages. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.

The opinion states the case.

Wilson, Kemp & Hobbs and McKinney & Settle, for the plaintiff in error.

Martin & Tuck, for the defendant in error.

CAMPBELL, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an action by notice of motion in which the plaintiff, Gladys A. DeJarnette, recovered a judgment against Raylass Chain Stores, Incorporated, in the sum of $4,000. The case was tried by a jury upon an issue involving the alleged negligence of the defendant and the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. The case made by the plaintiff may be thus summarized:

On the morning of February 8, 1933, between the hours of 11 and 12 o'clock, the plaintiff, a young married woman, went to the store of defendant situated in the town of South Boston, Virginia, to purchase a piece of oilcloth. The defendant's store, locally known as the Outlet Store, is approximately twenty-four feet wide and ninety feet long. On the left hand side in the extreme rear of the store is a stairway leading from the main floor to the basement, the basement being used merely for storage purposes and not for the display of merchandise. The walls of the store were on two sides of the stairway, to-wit, the rear and left hand side. There was a landing leading to the stairway which was about three feet long and two and one-half feet wide and six inches below the main floor. The length of the open space leading from the main floor to the landing is thirty-six inches. This open space had no barrier across it. At the time of the accident there were electric lights burning in the store but the light at the head of the stairway was not burning. Across the front of the stairway, with the exception of the thirty-six inch open space, there were racks or fixtures eighty-three inches high. Shoes were on display on these racks and shoe boxes were stacked under the racks to such an extent that the stairway was...