Renfro Drug Co. v. Jackson, 3158.

• Decision Date: 21 February 1935
• Docket Number: No 3158.,3158.
• Citation: Renfro Drug Co. v. Jackson, 81 S.W.2d 101 (Tex. App. 1935)
• Parties: RENFRO DRUG CO. v. JACKSON.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 101

81 S.W.2d 101

RENFRO DRUG CO. v. JACKSON.

No 3158.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

February 21, 1935.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1935.

Appeal from District Court, El Paso County; P. R. Price, Judge.

Suit by R. H. Jackson against the Renfro Drug Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

J. G. Bennis, of El Paso, for appellant.

Jones, Hardie, Grambling & Howell, of El Paso, for appellee.

WALTHALL, Justice.

R. H. Jackson, as plaintiff, husband of Ethyl Jackson, brought this suit against the Renfro Drug Company, a corporation, to recover damages for personal injuries which he alleged she sustained while an invitee on the premises occupied by the defendant, Renfro Drug Company, as the result of certain alleged negligent acts of the defendant proximately causing said injuries.

Ethyl Jackson on January 29, 1932, entered defendant's drug store for the purpose of making a purchase of certain articles of goods, and before doing so she went to the rest room maintained by defendant on the mezzanine floor of the said drug store for defendant's feminine customers who were invited to use said rest room. As she was descending the stairway from said rest room, her foot slipped on some object on said stairway near the top, causing her to fall to the bottom of the stairway, causing the injuries complained of.

Plaintiff assigns as negligent acts causing Ethyl Jackson to fall and sustain said injuries: The stairway down which she was proceeding at the time of her fall was not lighted but was dark; that there were no handrailings or banisters along the sides of the stairs; that if said stairway had been properly lighted or properly equipped with handrails Ethyl Jackson would not have fallen and been injured.

In addition to said personal injuries, the petition alleges that plaintiff was compelled to and did incur, and which it will be necessary to thereafter incur, certain expenses itemized, aggregating the sum of $883.90, for all of which plaintiff sues.

Defendant answered, pleading general de murrer, general denial, special denial, contributory negligence on the part of Ethyl Jackson (a) in entering upon and attempting to descend the stairway in question with full knowledge of its unlighted condition; (b) in failing to call for a light, or greater light than that furnished over the stairway, and in failing to call for assistance in descending said stairway, such assistance being readily available; (c) in failing to make use of the handrail provided along said stairway.

The case was tried with the aid of a jury.

At the conclusion of the evidence, and in due time, and in due order, defendant filed its motion for an instructed verdict; filed its written objections to the court's charge; filed its motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, all of which motions the court heard and overruled, to which ruling defendant excepted.

After defining certain terms used in the charge, to which there was no objection made, the court submitted the case upon special issues, to which the jury made answers substantially as follows: "Ethyl Jackson sustained the personal injuries complained of as a result of a fall on the stairway maintained by defendant in its store; Mrs. Jackson's fall was not an unavoidable accident; said stairway was without a handrail; it was negligence to maintain said stairway without a handrail; such negligence was a proximate cause of Mrs. Jackson's injuries complained of; the light maintained for lighting the stairway was insufficient to properly light the stairway for customers of the store; the failure to properly light the stairway was negligence and a proximate cause of plaintiff's wife's injuries; it was not negligence on the part of plaintiff's wife in not calling for light or assistance; the stairway was not equipped with a handrail.

The jury assessed plaintiff's damages at $4,000. Upon the jury's findings the court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff for said amount.

Defendant duly filed its motion for a new trial which the court overruled, to which defendant excepted and gave notice and perfected its appeal.

Opinion.

Appellant filed assignments of error, and based thereon submits eleven propositions.

The evidence is practically undisputed on the material facts. The contention of appellant is based largely upon the well-established rules of law to be applied to the undisputed facts. The facts, substantially, are that appellant Renfro Drug Company maintained a rest room for its women customers on the mezzanine floor of its drug store. The rest room was approached by a stairway consisting of some eleven steps extending from the ground floor to the mezzanine floor above. The steps and walls on either side were of standard construction, and no question is raised as to any defect in either.

Appellee's wife, on the occasion in question, was an intended customer of appellant's drug store. Mrs. Jackson, on the occasion in question, went to the rest room and on returning, while attempting to go down the stairway, her foot slipped on a piece of chocolate candy on the stairway, and she was thereby caused to fall down the steps, and from the fall sustained the injuries complained of. In the...