Trammell v. Morris & Dickson Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1960
• Docket Number: No. 9348,9348
• Citation: Trammell v. Morris & Dickson Co., 125 So.2d 21 (La. App. 1960)
• Parties: Mayron Wayne TRAMMELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MORRIS & DICKSON COMPANY, LTD. et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 21

125 So.2d 21

Mayron Wayne TRAMMELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.MORRIS & DICKSON COMPANY, LTD. et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 9348.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

Dec. 1, 1960.

Giddens & Hall, Shreveport, for appellant.

Bodenheimer, Looney & Richie, Cook, Clark, Egan, Yancey & King, Shreveport, for appellee.

GLADNEY, Judge.

This suit was brought by plaintiff, individually, and in behalf of his ten year old son, David Wayne Trammell, for damages resulting from an accident of July 10, 1959, when the little finger on the child's left hand was caught in the front door of a drug-store located at 2607 Sunset Plaza, Shreveport, Louisiana.Made defendants are Sunset Village, Inc., the owner of the building, Morris & Dickson Company, Ltd., and Shreveport Druggists, Inc., lessees, and their respective liability insurers.Following trial the judge a quo, in a written opinion, pointed out that there was no negligence on the part of any of the defendants, and that the minor's injuries were the result of his own inattention in placing his fingers behind the door.From judgment rejecting plaintiff's demands, he has perfected this appeal.

The defendants are charged with negligence in the following respects: (1) Constructing and maintaining entrance doors of a nature and type inherently dangerous; (2) Failing to keep the door in a proper working condition, and particularly, failing to keep the brake on the door in proper working condition; and (3) In placing a display of knives in a dangerous position in a manner so as to attract children or other persons, thereby creating an attractive nuisance.Exceptions of no cause or right of action were filed on behalf of each of the defendants and were overruled, after which answers were filed wherein it was alleged that the door was constructed and operated in a normal manner for front doors of drugstores; that there was no defect as to the structure or operation and consequently there was no negligence on their part.It is further pleaded, in the alternative, that David Wayne Trammell was negligent in several respects.The father of David Wayne Trammell was likewise charged with negligence in failing to maintain control or lookout for the safety of his minor son, and in permitting the minor to run about the defendant's premises unattended.The lessor and its insurer filed a third party petition against the lessees and their insurer, to which the latter filed an exception of no cause and no right of action, and thereafter an answer.

There is no dispute concerning the proven facts, and the case presents for determination only the question of liability.

On the aforesaid date the minor and his father were inside the drugstore when Mrs. Trammell, who was seated outside in an automobile, motioned for the child to come to her and then sent him into the drugstore for a magazine.He entered the drugstore through the left door and paused near the entrance to look at a display of knives, which was located directly adjacent to the door.While so engaged he placed his hand against the door jamb with the result that the opening and closing of the door occasioned by a customer's exist, amputated a portion of the child's finger.David, who was described by his father as being bright, could not assign any reason for placing his hand over the door jamb.

During the trial counsel for plaintiff requested that the judge visit the drugstore and inspect the operation of the door in question.This was done and the judge noted in his written opinion the following finding:

'We examined these doors and found the left hand door through which David entered closed without being checked, but it did not 'slam' and did not close any faster than the right hand door, which was somewhat checked before being closed.'

The door in question was one of two doors of heavy...