Smith v. Union & New Haven Trust Co.

• Decision Date: 14 May 1936
• Citation: Smith v. Union & New Haven Trust Co., 121 Conn. 369, 185 A. 81 (Conn. 1936)
• Parties: SMITH v. UNION & NEW HAVEN TRUST CO.
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

185 A. 81

121 Conn. 369

SMITH v. UNION & NEW HAVEN TRUST CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 14, 1936

Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; John Richards Booth Judge.

Action by Esther M. Smith against the Union & New Haven Trust Company to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly due to the negligence of defendant, brought to the superior court and tried to the jury. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Error and new trial ordered.

HINMAN and BROWN, JJ., dissenting.

Owner in treating floor in office building, may use wax, oil, or other substance in customary manner without incurring liability to person slipping thereon, unless owner negligently selects or applies materials.

H. M French and J. E. McNerney, both of New Haven (Daniel L. O'Neill, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellant.

Harold C. Donegan and Morris W. Mendlesohn, both of New Haven, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, BANKS, AVERY, and BROWN, JJ.

AVERY Judge.

The plaintiff slipped and fell in the corridor on the fourth floor of the defendant's office building. In her complaint, she claimed that her fall and injuries resulting therefrom were caused by the negligence of the defendant (1) in applying oil or wax or some composition to the floor so that it became slippery; (2) in not covering it; (3) in permitting lumps or blotches of wax-like substance to remain thereon; and (4) in failing to inspect. The case was tried to the jury and a verdict returned in favor of the plaintiff, which the defendant moved to set aside. The only error claimed upon this appeal is the refusal of the trial court to set aside the verdict.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury might have found the facts as follows: The defendant owned a large office building. On October 4, 1934, at about 10:30 in the morning, the plaintiff entered the building for the purpose of conducting some business with a tenant. She was taken by an elevator to the fourth floor and there alighted. While passing through the vestibule in front of the elevators and about to enter the corridor upon which the tenant's office was located, she slipped and fell. At that point, the floor was made of a cement preparation called terrazzo. It had the appearance of having been more highly polished than usual that morning, and the plaintiff had once seen a polishing brush used upon it. After the plaintiff fell, there was a mark upon the floor estimated by one of the witnesses to be five inches long and by another sixteen inches. A witness assisted her to arise. He looked at the floor but saw nothing upon it. He then knelt to see if he could ascertain what caused her fall and, looking closely, saw two or three lumps of a substance like wax smaller than a dime and about one-quarter of an inch in diameter. These spots had the appearance and odor of wax when he scraped them off with his finger and picked them off the floor. They were not produced in court. He testified that such wax would retain its odor for only a few moments. It was near these spots that the plaintiff slipped.

Assuming that the jury might reasonably infer that the defendant's employees had used wax upon the floor on the morning of the plaintiff's fall, it does not follow that she is entitled to recover. At the time of her injuries, she was upon the defendant's property upon its invitation and it owed to her the...