Vezina v. Amoskeag Realty Co.
| Decision Date | 30 December 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5888,5888 |
| Citation | 260 A.2d 115,110 N.H. 66 |
| Parties | Evelyn B. VEZINA, by her Conservator, Ernest O. Dugay v. AMOSKEAG REALTY COMPANY. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
King, Nixon, Christy & Tessier, Manchester (David L. Nixon, Manchester, orally), for plaintiff.
Sulloway, Hollis, Godfrey & Soden and Martin L. Gross, Concord, for defendant.
This is an appeal from a verdict for the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for personal injuries. Plaintiff was a tenant of the defendant and fell in a bathroom maintained by the defendant for the common use of tenants. Defendant's exceptions to the denial of its motions for nonsuit, directed verdict, judgment non obstante ueredicto, withdrawal of certain issues, and to the instructions of the Trial Court were reserved and transferred by Grant, J.
On August 25, 1966 Evelyn B. Vezina was a tenant of the defendant Amoskeag Realty Co. on the second floor of a building owned by the defendant at 1152 Elm Street, in Manchester. There were some 15 tenants on this floor largely people in their 60's and 70's. Except for one apartment with a private bath all tenants on the floor relied upon a community men's bathroom and community women's bathroom. Mrs. Vezina was 73 years old at the time of the accident and a series of falls in the fifties had left her with a permanently stiff hip so that she walked with difficulty. She had been a tenant of the defendant for about four years and the general manager of the defendant's properties, Mr. Miller, testified that she was one of many tenants who were disabled.
Mrs. Vezina fell in the bathroom and alleged that her fall was caused by certain conditions existing in the bathroom brought about by the lack of due care of the landlord. These were as follows: (1) use of an enamel paint which became slippery when wet; (2) unevenness of the floor where it sloped from the door to the drain; (3) inadequate illumination; (4) absence of a mat on the floor; (5) absence of a handrail on the left-hand wall; (6) presence of water on the floor at the time of the accident.
Defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a nonsuit and directed verdict, to denial of motions to withdraw certain issues and to the submission by the Court in its charge of those issues. Plaintiff excepted to the refusal of the Court to allow as costs the actual expert witness fees charged by plaintiff's experts.
Defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to determine that any or all of the deficiencies claimed by the plaintiff existed or were causal to the accident. It is axiomatic that in considering these claims the 'evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom must be construed most favorably to the plaintiff.' Dubreuil v. Dubreuil, 107 N.H. 519, 520, 229 A.2d 338, 339; Plume v. Couillard, 104 N.H. 267, 268, 184 A.2d 452. While the nonsuit motion was properly denied if there was any evidence permitting the submission of the case to the jury on any of plaintiff's claims the defendant's motions to limit issues require individual examination.
The plaintiff presented evidence from an architect that the paint that was used on the bathroom floor was hazardous when wet, that the uneven surface of the floor, the lack of a mat, the lack of a handrail and inadequate lighting all rendered the bathroom unsafe and not in accordance with reasonable safety standards. There was testimony that the toilet leaked and from the testimony of the plaintiff and others it could be found that there was water on the floor at the time the plaintiff fell. One witness confirmed that the paint was hazardous when wet and to the unevenness of the floor. We are satisfied the evidence would permit findings that the defendant was negligent in the construction and maintenance of the bathroom on each of the deficiencies alleged. Jacobson v. Yoken's Inc., 104 N.H. 331, 186 A.2d 148.
The major thrust of the defendant's argument is directed at causation. They argue that the plaintiff was unable to describe the cause of her fall and that in this situation a jury should not be permitted to speculate among a number of claimed deficiencies as to what caused her fall. Plaintiff testified that she 'fell in a bunch' and the cause was not stated. Lack of direct evidence of the cause of a fall is not fatal to the plaintiff's case if by reasonable inference a jury could find it was caused by the defendant's negligence. Mutterperl v. Lake Spofford Hotel, 106 N.H. 538, 541, 216 A.2d 35.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sargent v. Ross
...basis of the principles set forth above, to support the verdict of the jury which had the benefit of a view. See Vezina v. Amoskeag Realty Co., 110 N.H. 66, 260 A.2d 115 (1969); Manning v. Freeman, 105 N.H. 272, 198 A.2d 14 (1964); Dowd v. Portsmouth Hosp., 105 N.H. 53, 193 A.2d 788 (1963);......
-
Cutter v. Town of Farmington, 84-435
...RSA 525:14-a, was not meant to include all fees paid to an expert witness. Id. at 102, 333 A.2d at 462; Vezina v. Amoskeag Realty Co., 110 N.H. 66, 69, 260 A.2d 115, 117-18 (1969). Those "reasonable charges" of experts which properly lie within the discretion of the trial court are limited ......
-
State v. Wilson
...expert witness fees to be allowed.' What fees are to be permitted is in the discretion of the trial court. Vezina v. Amoskeag Realty Co., 110 N.H. 66, 69, 260 A.2d 115, 117-18 (1969); Medico v. Almsay, 108 N.H. 324, 234 A.2d 527, 528 (1967); McLaughlin v. Union-Leader, 100 N.H. 367, 127 A.2......
-
Brown v. Bonnin
...was related to her injuries. In support of this argument, plaintiff cites three similar personal injury cases, Vezina v. Amoskeag Realty Co., 110 N.H. 66, 260 A.2d 115 (1969); Mutterperl v. Lake Spofford Hotel, 106 N.H. 538, 542-43, 216 A.2d 35, 39 (1965); Goldstein v. Corporation, 86 N.H. ......