Rogers v. Hennessee
| Citation | 1979 OK 138,602 P.2d 1033 |
| Decision Date | 02 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 52311,52311 |
| Parties | Sandra May ROGERS, Appellant, v. Edna HENNESSEE d/b/a Edna Hennessee Aladdin Beauty School, Appellee. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals, Division I.
On appeal from District Court, Comanche County, Hon. J. Winston Raburn, Judge, the Court of Appeals reversed judgment sustaining defendant's demurrer to the evidence in a slip-and-fall negligence action brought by a student beautician against a beauty school owner.
CERTIORARI GRANTED, COURT OF APPEALS' OPINION VACATED AND JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
John Sprowls, Pauls Valley, for appellant.
Foliart, Mills & Niemeyer by David Cole, Oklahoma City, for appellee.
The dispositive issue on certiorari is whether the evidence in this slip-and-fall negligence case was sufficient to withstand the demurrer. We hold that the plaintiff's case fell short of the prescribed legal minimum and affirm the trial court's judgment.
Appellant, a student beautician (Student), slipped and fell in a puddle of water while walking from her work station to the supply pantry. After the trial court sustained beauty school owner's (Owner) demurrer to Student's evidence for want of requisite showing that her injury had been caused by Owner's negligence, Student appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the cause for a new trial. Owner seeks certiorari.
The parties stand in an undisputed invitor-invitee relationship. The law casts on the invitor the duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn invitees of conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls and the like. All normal or ordinary risks incident to the use of the premises are assumed by the invitee. No liability arises for any injury resulting from dangers which are so apparent or readily observable that one would reasonably expect them to be discovered. 1 Moreover, failure to remove known but obvious hazards by alteration or reconstruction of the premises constitutes no breach of duty. 2
Owner contends that the condition of the floor around the sinks where the Student fell was one of which she should have had knowledge and which should have been obvious to one under ordinary circumstances. Student was of course familiar with the premises. She had been in training for four weeks before her injury.
The afternoon of her fall for which recovery is sought, she was passing in front of the work station used to wash hair. When she walked by the area she encountered a puddle of water estimated to be five feet wide. Water was known to spill and accumulate on the floor during activity in the area. Students were required to clean spills occurring during their work. When the Student was in the same area five or six hours earlier the water had not been present. She testified that the offending puddle could not be seen from a distance that the color of the floor made it difficult for her to detect the water until she was directly upon it.
While the physical condition of the area around the wash sinks during normal daily activity might be familiar to the Student, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that she could have perceived or anticipated the danger of the wet floor on the day and at the time the accident occurred. There was no indication the work stations had been used that day so as to alert the Student to a potential danger from wet floors. More importantly, the Student's familiarity with the general circumstances in the area does not of itself operate in law to transform the offending hazard into an apparent and obvious defect. The character of a condition is generally to be judged by objective rather than subjective standards. 3 One's familiarity with the premises is an element to be considered in assessing the degree of care the injured party exercised for his/her own safety rather than in determining the legal quality of the condition. What constitutes a hidden danger depends on the physical surroundings and on the peculiar use made of them at the time of the injury. 4
Conflicting inferences may be drawn from the facts adduced in this case as to whether the puddle in question did, to an ordinary eye, have a "deceptively innocent appearance" or as to whether its presence on the floor might have been reasonably anticipated by the Student under the circumstances existing at the time of her fall. 5 The physical surroundings at the situs of the injury, coupled with the circumstances of its occurrence, clearly present a fact issue and we cannot declare, as a matter of law, that the offending puddle was in the legal class of either "hidden" or "open" danger. When passing upon a demurrer to the evidence, the trial court must consider as true all evidence favorable to the party against whom the test of sufficiency is directed, together with all reasonably drawn inferences therefrom, and must disregard all conflicting evidence favorable to the demurrant. 6
The crucial element of proof for us to assess in this case is that which deals with the Owner's want of due care to discover the puddle on the premises in time to prevent the Student's exposure to danger or give warning of its presence. Absent evidence that invitor created the condition or that he/she failed to warn of or remove a peril known to exist, a demurrer must put an end to a slip-and-fall litigation based on negligence. 7
The pivot of liability sought to be imposed here on the Owner is timely notice of danger. An invitor cannot be held responsible unless it be shown that he/she had notice or could be charged with gaining knowledge of the condition in time sufficient to effect its removal or to give warning of its presence. 8
While from the evidence adduced 9 we can and do infer that the offending condition was formed by water spilling from the wash sinks, the proof is insufficient to support an inference as to want of due care in the Owner's failure to discover the defect and to correct the condition in the premises before the Student's encounter with peril.
No defect in the design or maintenance of the wash sinks or in the construction or upkeep of the area around them was shown to exist. Testimony indicates that three instructors continuously circulated among the students during the day and their duties included supervising periodic removal of accumulated water from work stations. The accident occurred late in the afternoon during final cleanup by students with instructors still on the premises.
Liability here can be predicated neither on the use of premises known to be defective for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Tulsa Motels
...hazards by alteration or reconstruction of the premises is not a breach of the landowner's duty to an invitee. Rogers v. Hennessee, 1979 OK 138, 602 P.2d 1033, 1034; Buck v. Del City Apartments, Inc., 1967 OK 81, 431 P.2d 360, 365.14 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 311. The Restatement give......
-
Byford v. Town of Asher, 75849
...Healey Linen Service Co. v. Travis, Okl., 434 P.2d 924, 926-927 (1967); Sutherland, supra note 3, 595 P.2d at 783; Rogers v. Hennessee, Okl., 602 P.2d 1033, 1034 (1979). Failure to remove known but obvious hazards through alteration or reconstruction of the premises constitutes no breach of......
-
Weldon v. Dunn
...danger of receiving an injury, a duty to exercise ordinary care to prevent such injury arises." Id. at 190. ¶12 In Rogers v. Hennessee, 1979 OK 138, 602 P.2d 1033 (Okla.1979), we discussed premises' owner's duty in the setting of a beauty school. There, a student brought a negligence suit, ......
-
Schrock v. Wyeth, Inc.
...Realty, 125 F.3d 1335, 1339 (10th Cir.1997) (holding that a “business owner is not liable for third person assaults”); Rogers v. Hennessee, 602 P.2d 1033, 1034 (Okla.1979) (noting that the “parties stand in an undisputed invitor-invitee relationship”). These cases do not persuade us that Ok......