Staples v. Senders

Decision Date27 February 1940
CitationStaples v. Senders, 164 Or. 244, 96 P.2d 215 (Or. 1940)
PartiesSTAPLES <I>v.</I> SENDERS ET AL.
CourtOregon Supreme Court
  Duty and liability concerning condition of store or shop, note
                100 A.L.R. 710. See, also, 20 R.C.L. 66 (7 Perm. Supp., 4820)
                  36 C.J., Landlord and Tenant, §§ 913, 953
                

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County.

JOHN P. WINTER, Judge.

Action for damages for injuries suffered from a fall through an open trapdoor by Isaac Staples against Henrietta Senders, executrix, and Arthur Senders, executor, of the estate of Eugenia J. Rothschild, deceased. From a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendants appeal.

REVERSED. FORMER OPINION ADHERED TO ON REHEARING.

James Arthur Powers, of Portland (Otto J. Kraemer, of Portland, on the brief), for appellants.

Calvin N. Souther and Robert Mautz, both of Portland (Wilbur, Beckett, Howell & Oppenheimer, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

This action was commenced against Eugenia J. Rothschild, who died pending the litigation. Her executors, substituted in her place, have prosecuted this appeal. For convenience of statement, the case will be treated in this opinion as though Mrs. Rothschild was still the defendant and appellant.

The defendant has appealed from a judgment for damages for personal injuries in favor of the plaintiff, based upon the verdict of a jury. Plaintiff's injuries resulted from a fall through an open trapdoor and down the stairway to the basement of a building in the city of Portland. The defendant is the owner of the building, and the particular portion of the premises in which the accident occurred was, at the time, in the possession and under the control of a tenant. Rulings of the Circuit Court denying the defendant's motions for a judgment of involuntary nonsuit and for a directed verdict in her favor are assigned as error. The sole charge of negligence is based upon the failure of the defendant to maintain a railing around the trapdoor and a railing along the upper portion of the stairs leading to the basement. It is asserted by the plaintiff that these omissions constitute both a violation of an ordinance of the city of Portland and a breach of the common law duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; while the defendant maintains that the ordinance has no application to the case, and that she, as owner of the building, violated no duty to the plaintiff imposed upon her by the law; and that, even though the proof shows negligence on her part, such negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident, but that the plaintiff's injury was caused by his own negligence, that of the tenant, or of both.

The building where the plaintiff was injured is located on South West Third Avenue, at the corner of Columbia Street in the city of Portland. It consists of three stories and a basement. The ground floor is used for stores, and the two upper floors as a hotel. The accident occurred in one of the stores which was occupied by the defendant's lessee, Mrs. Sarah Herman, who for eight years had conducted there a second-hand and antique business. Photographs picturing the conditions were received in evidence, and from these and the oral testimony we gather that the building faced west, the storeroom was fifty-five feet deep and twenty-two feet wide, and the trapdoor, which was seventy-four inches long and thirty-eight inches wide, was a few feet from the north wall which it paralleled lengthwise, the entrance to the basement stairway being at the east end of the trapdoor, which would be the end nearer to the rear of the room. Except at this end there was apparently no means of easy access to the trapdoor because of the wall on its north side and furniture and other articles of merchandise which partially surrounded it. A person desiring to reach it from the front of the store would walk down an aisle between articles of furniture, tables and cases displaying merchandise, and turn to the left at a large piece of furniture, called in the testimony a commode or chest. After passing...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
22 cases
  • Peters v. McKay
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • November 14, 1951
    ...the intention of its makers': Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 512, 36 L.Ed. 226; Staples v. Senders, 164 Or. 244, 261, 96 P.2d 215, 101 P.2d 232.' When, in the process of statutory construction, the legislative intent is not manifest, courts may properly se......
  • Smith v. Portland Traction Co.
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • February 21, 1961
    ...v. Portland Traction Co., 219 Or. 1, 341 P.2d 125, 346 P.2d 375; Birks v. East Side Transfer Co., 194 Or. 7, 241 P.2d 120; Staples v. Senders, 164 Or. 244, 96 P.2d 215, 101 P.2d 232; Myrtle Point Transportation Co. v. Port of Coquille River, 86 Or. 311, 168 P. 625, (2) plaintiff be within t......
  • Clark v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • October 23, 1952
    ...and a tenant or his guests are injured thereby, he is liable. Senner v. Danewolf, 139 Or. 93, 293 P. 599, 6 P.2d 240; Staples v. Senders, 164 Or. 244, 96 P.2d 215, 101 P.2d 232; Lyons v. Lich, 145 Or. 606, 28 P.2d 872. But no such condition upon the premises is proved here. If the landlord ......
  • Humbert v. Sellars
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • October 15, 1985
    ...1 Defendants cited Jensen v. Meyers, 250 Or. 360, 441 P.2d 604 (1968), Macomber v. Cox, 249 Or. 61, 435 P.2d 462 (1968); Staples v. Senders, 164 Or. 244, 96 P.2d 215, 101 P.2d 232 (1940), and Restatement (Second) Torts, section 356 (1965).2 She cites Young v. Garwacki, 380 Mass. 162, 402 N.......
  • Get Started for Free