Thompson v. Beard & Gabelman

• Decision Date: 08 April 1950
• Docket Number: No. 37847,37847
• Citation: 216 P.2d 798,169 Kan. 75
• Parties: THOMPSON v. BEARD & GABELMAN, Inc.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Page 798

216 P.2d 798

169 Kan. 75

THOMPSON v. BEARD & GABELMAN, Inc.

No. 37847.

Supreme Court of Kansas.

April 8, 1950.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The proprietor of a store is not an insurer of his customers against injury, but is chargeable only with such care as is reasonable under the circumstances.

2. The general rule is that the proprietor is not liable for negligence where the customer is using a portion of the store to which invitation has not been extended and which the proprietor would not reasonably expect the customer to use in connection with conduct of his business.

3. A question of negligence is ordinarily one for the jury, but where the facts are undisputed and the sufficiency of the evidence is properly challenged, it is the province of the court to say, as a matter of law, whether upon the facts viewed most favorably to the plaintiff, actionable negligence can be inferred.

4. Where a business invitee enters the premises and follows a course of her own choosing with which she is unfamiliar, and which is so dark that she cannot see, resulting in her injury, she is guilty of contributory negligence.

5. Record examined in an action for damages for personal injuries suffered by plaintiff customer in a fall down basement stairs leading from the private office of defendant's store, and held: Under facts and circumstances stated in the opinion, plaintiff's evidence established no cause of action against defendant, proprietor of the store.

Thomas H. Finigan and Charles S. Schnider, both of Kansas City, argued the cause and were on the briefs for the appellant.

Willard L. Phillips, of Kansas City, argued the cause, and Edwin S. McAnany, Thos. M. Van Cleave, Patrick B. McAnany, and Thos. M. Van Cleave, Jr., all of Kansas City, were with him on the briefs for the appellee.

WERTZ, Justice.

This was an action for damages for personal injuries, and plaintiff appeals from a ruling of the district court sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's evidence on the ground that it failed to show actionable negligence on the part of the defendant.

The facts may be briefly stated. Plaintiff, a customer, entered defendant's dress shop to look at house dresses; she selected two which she wished to try on and, at the direction of a saleslady then busy serving another customer, went to a fitting room at the rear of the store. Seeing two identical curtained doorways, plaintiff entered the one directly ahead of her and found herself in a small office containing a chair and desk with a lighted lamp upon it; noticing a door slightly ajar immediately to her right, she mistakenly assumed it led to the fitting room and entered, but had advanced only a few steps when she fell down a flight of steps to the basement storeroom, sustaining the injuries for which recovery was sought in this action.

In her amended petition, plaintiff alleged negligence in the following particulars: (1) Defendant's clerk directed plaintiff to the fitting room by pointing to the southwest corner of the store; (2) there were no placards or directions in defendant's store to advise plaintiff as to the location of the fitting room at the rear of the store; (3) defendant failed to adequately light the stairway leading from the office to the basement; (4) defendant failed to warn plaintiff by signs or otherwise of the existence of the stairway; and (5) defendant failed to erect a gate or barrier around the door at the head of the stairway.

Error is charged in the court's rulings sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's evidence, and denying plaintiff's motion for new trial. Inasmuch as both assignments of error involve the same point and require an examination of the record, we will treat them together.

The primary question to be considered is whether the plaintiff's evidence, viewed in the favorable light to which it is entitled on demurrer, established a cause of action against the defendant. In deciding this point, we must determine the legal duty owed by defendant to plaintiff, a customer and invitee in its place of business.

The proprietor of a store, shop, or other place of business kept open for public patronage is not under an insurer's liability as to the safety of persons who come thereon, but he does owe to customers who enter the premises, while the establishment is open for business, the duty of exercising ordinary care to keep the aisles, passageways and such other parts of the premises as are ordinarily used by customers in transacting business in a reasonably safe condition for use by the persons thus entering, and to warn them of dangerous conditions upon the premises which are known, or which reasonably should be known, to him but not to them. (38 Am.Jur. 791) The duty of the proprietor of a place of business which is open to public patronage to use ordinary care to make the premises reasonably safe for customers is generally limited to that part of the premises designed, adapted, and prepared for the accommodation of customers, or to which customers may reasonably be expected to go. The duty of the proprietor of a place of business to his customers does not require him to render safe for their use parts of the building reserved for use only by him and his employees, such as private offices, shipping rooms and warerooms, unless he expressly or impliedly invites or induces a customer to enter such a reserved part. (38 Am.Jur. 794, and cases cited). A person who has received an injury in consequence of passing through a wrong doorway in a part of the building not designed for the use of unattended customers cannot recover unless he was induced to enter therein by the invitation or allurement of the proprietor. (38 Am.Jur. 796 and cases cited in note 15).

The Kansas case of Thogmartin v. Koppel, 145 Kan. 347, 65 P.2d 571, is authority for the general rule quoted above. To the same effect is Hickey v. Fox-Ozark Theatres Corp., 156 Kan. 137, 141, 131 P.2d 671, 674, in which this court said: 'The general rule is well established that proprietors of places of public entertainment or amusement are not insurers of their patrons, against injury, but are only chargeable with the exercise of what under the particular circumstances is ordinary or reasonable care. This question was considered in our recent case of Klish v. Alaskan Amusement Co., 153 Kan. 93, 109 P.2d 75.'

Cases from other jurisdictions also support this general rule as to the duty owed a customer by the proprietor of a store. The following is quoted from a Kentucky case, Wall v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 209 Ky. 258, 272 S.W. 730, 731, in which plaintiff was injured by falling down a defective flight of stairs while helping a salesgirl serving her in loosening some tangled clothesline: 'The general rule, as stated in Thompson on Negligence, § 988, is that a merchant is not required to keep his premises safe, but only that part to which his customers are invited. But this duty does not extend so far as to make such an occupant responsible for the unsafe condition of those parts of his premises not intended for the reception of visitors or customers, and where they are not expected or invited to go', citing Keeran v. Spurgeon Mercantile Co., 194 Iowa 1240, 191 N.W. 99, 27 A.L.R. 579; Ferguson & Palmer v. Ferguson's Adm'r, Ky., 114 S.W. 297; Smith v. Trimble, 64 S.W. 915, 23 Ky. Law Rep. 1206; Menteer v. Scalzo Fruit Co., 240 Mo. 177, 144 S.W. 833.

See also annotations covering this general rule appearing in 33 A.L.R. 181, 43 A.L.R. 866, 46 A.L.R. 1111, 58 A.L.R. 136, 100 A.L.R. 710, and 162 A.L.R. 950.

Was defendant negligent in this legal duty owed plaintiff, a customer in its place of business? To determine this, we must examine plaintiff's evidence. As the only witness in her own behalf, plaintiff testified that she entered defendant's shop about 1 o'clock in the afternoon; she had been in the store a couple of times previously, the last time being about a year before; her purpose on entering was to look for house dresses; she proceeded to the racks upon which they were displayed; the saleslady in the shop came back to help her and she selected two dresses.

'Q. And then what happened? A. Well, then another lady came in and she went to wait on her and I asked her if I could try them on and she said, 'certainly, right in the back' (illustrating). * * *'

'Q. I notice you made a motion with your hand and said 'certainly, right there in back.' Now which direction was she pointing? Now which direction was she pointing when you made that motion with your hand? A. Right in back where the curtains were. * * *'

'Q. How far would you say it was from the rack where you picked up these two dresses to the curtains that you were talking about? A. About four or five feet I imagine.'

Plaintiff further testified that the day was cloudy and it was rather dim in the store; the lights were not on; the curtains she was talking about and had walked to were of plain material, sort of red in color, and were two-panel curtains; that one of the curtains which led into the little office was open just a little.

'Q. All right, now then what did you do? A. Well, I * * * thinking that was the dressing room, I went into the one that the curtain was open and then I knew that I was in a little office; I knew that was not the dressing room so I turned to the other door and I * * *

'Q. (interrupting) All right, just a moment here. Going into the office, when you got in behind this curtain, what was there in that little space? A. There was a desk and a chair. * * *' A. A small light on the desk with a shade on it.

'Q. Was that light burning? A. Yes.'

Plaintiff testified that no one was in the office.

'Q. All right, what else did you see in the room with reference to another outlet? A. Well, there was a door to the north.

'Q. All right, what sort of a door was it? I mean, was it a wooden door or just a curtain? A. It was a wooden door.

'Q. All right, just describe this door to the...