Robinson v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 May 1960
• Docket Number: No. 60-F-13,60-F-13
• Parties: Eddie Mae ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 793

167 N.E.2d 793

26 Ill.App.2d 139

Eddie Mae ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, a Corporation,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 60-F-13.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District.

May 27, 1960.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1960.

Kramer, Campbell, Costello & Wiechert, by R. E. Costello, Jr., East St. Louis, for appellant.

Robert H. Rice, East St. Louis, for appellee.

SCHEINEMAN, Presiding Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment on a verdict for $5,000 to compensate plaintiff for injuries she received in a fall while on defendant's premises as a business invitee. The complaint charged that plaintiff fell when something caught or gripped her heel as she started to descend stairs, and that the cause was the maintenance by defendant of an unsafe and dangerous rubber mat on the floor.

The evidence discloses that entrance to the defendant's office is gained by walking up two or three steps from the sidewalk to a set of double doors leading into an areaway which leads to another set of double doors and then up another three steps to the main floor. The steps were about ten feet wide without banisters. They had treads on them, and on the main floor there was rubber safety mat from the stairs to the business office. Plaintiff had customarily used these stairs when paying her telephone bill.

Plaintiff testified 'I was at the top of the steps my foot on the top step reaching forward with my right foot down to the first step, at that time something caught my foot and I fell. * * * I don't remember seeing any debris, don't remember any rips in the matting. All I know is something gripped the heel of my left shoe.' At another place she said 'I went to put my right foot on the top step and my left foot something gripped the heel and caused me to lose my balance.'

This is all the plaintiff said as to the cause of her fall, and there was no other witness to the occurrence. Another witness testified he had found by trial with the other shoe that the heel could be pressed into the hexagonal holes in the mat.

A safety expert described the floor in question as polished terrazzo, the rubber mat as being 'rug thickness' about one-eighth or one-fourth of an inch thick, with hexagon holes about 11/16 of an inch wide at the widest point, that as safety engineer he has recommended such floor coverings and they are widely used, that the holes are for the purpose of adding to its non- skidding ability, giving it more rough surface and a better nonskid surface. All testimony as to the condition of the mat was to the effect that it was in excellent condition, without rips or tears, and that there was no debris or foreign substance on the floor.

For the defense, there was testimony that some 250,000 comings and goings were made by people annually. An offer was made of proof of no accidents, but this evidence was excluded upon objection, contrary to the principles announced in Campion v. Chicago Landscape Co., 295 Ill.App. 225, 14 N.E.2d 879, and Wolczek v. Public Service Co., 342 Ill. 482, 174 N.E. 577. However, the defendant makes no point of this, its principal contention being that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of defendant, hence no basis to submit the case to a jury.

There are many cases in the books involving plaintiffs who have slipped or tripped and suffered a fall while on another's premises. No liability is created by the mere occurrence, there must be some evidence of causation by a breach of duty of the defendant. That duty is to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises reasonably safe for the use of business invitees, and does not make a defendant an insurer of the safety of an invitee while on defendant's premises. Antibus v. W. T. Grant Co., 297 Ill.App. 363, 17 N.E.2d 610; Todd v. S. S. Kresge Co., 303 Ill.App. 89, 24 N.E.2d 899; Crump v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 313 Ill.App. 151, 39 N.E.2d 411.

There is nothing in the evidence to justify this court in going into the question of banisters. The plaintiff did not fall on the stairway, and the only cause of her fall claimed by her was that something gripped the heel of her shoe on the landing above the three steps. Likewise there is no evidence to sustain the charge in the complaint 'that said rubber mat was out of repair, insecurely adjusted, defective and in an unsafe or dangerous condition.'

There remains no basis for liability of the defendant, unless it can be called negligence to have a rubber mat of this design in place. Examination of rules of law on this subject discloses that liability may result when some foreign substance is placed or allowed to remain on the floor so that it causes a person to slip and fall. On the other hand, it is held that if slipping and falling occurs on the natural floor, such as polished wood, tile or terrazzo, there is no liability on the ground that there is no negligence in having a floor of common accepted design.

The question of slipping is not here involved, except that the defendant, like many business concerns, has installed rubber mats for the obvious purpose of improving the safety of the premises. Rugs or mats are widely used for this purpose, and the usual designs have ridges or holes to add to their non-skid function. Although thousands of people tread them safely, it is possible for someone to trip over almost anything, no matter how common its use. The following cases are cited for the purpose of showing the customary treatment of such falls:

Yearsley v. American Stores Co., 1929, 97 Pa.Super. 275. It appears that plaintiff was injured when the narrow heel of one of her shoes caught in one of the interstices in a heat register grate in the floor of defendant's store. The court, affirming a...