Walker v. Broad & Walnut Corporation
| Decision Date | 06 January 1936 |
| Docket Number | 309,323 |
| Parties | Walker v. Broad and Walnut Corporation et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued December 4, 1935
Appeals, Nos. 309 and 323, Jan. T., 1935, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. No. 1, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1934, No. 6718 in case of Doris Walker v. Broad and Walnut Corporation, and Joseph Lipton. Judgment reversed.
Trespass. Before SHANAMAN, J., specially presiding.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff against defendants in sum of $5,000. Defendants appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was dismissal of motion for judgment n.o.v.
The judgment of the court below is reversed and judgment is herein entered for defendants.
Harry S. Ambler, Jr., for Broad and Walnut Corporation, appellant.
John J McDevitt, Jr., with him Joseph M. Leib and John J. McDevitt, III, for Joseph Lipton, appellant.
Alfred L. Padula, with him Norman R. Dutton, for appellee.
Before FRAZER, C.J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN and BARNES, JJ.
Plaintiff, an acrobatic dancer, who had recently secured a position as an entertainer at the Embassy Club in the City of Philadelphia, was returning from her work on May 3, 1934. The hour was approximately three o'clock in the morning. She had been driven to her hotel by a girl friend. Upon alighting from the car she crossed the sidewalk and proceeded to pass through the single revolving door which comprised the only entrance. The door was of the ordinary metal and glass construction, permitting a view of the interior of the lobby. At that time the floor just inside the entrance was being cleaned by a servant of a floor cleaning establishment, which did the work under a contract with the hotel. This was the usual hour for the washing and scrubbing of the floor. As plaintiff entered the workman was "right at the front entrance of the lobby." He was "busy scrubbing with a mop and a bucket." In addition to water, a cleansing compound appropriate to the marble floor was used. After passing through the door, plaintiff started to cross the floor when she slipped and fell. She testified that she "sat right down on [her] spine" and that the floor "was all wet and slippery and soapy." She was assisted to her feet and proceeded in the elevator to the proper floor, from which she went unassisted to her room. These are the essential facts in the record, viewed, as it must be, in the light most favorable to plaintiff. To recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained this action of trespass was brought against the owner of the hotel and the proprietor of the floor cleaning establishment. The jury returned a verdict against both defendants, and from the judgment entered thereon each has appealed, assigning as error, inter alia, the refusal of their respective motions for judgment n.o.v.
It is not seriously contended that there was negligence on the part of defendants in the actual washing of the floor. There is no evidence that the work was not being done in the ordinary way and with the ordinary materials. It was only natural that the cleaning would be done at night and at an hour when few were in the lobby. The washing and cleaning of the floor was essential to the proper management and conduct of the hotel. That a marble floor is wet and slippery during the process of cleaning is common knowledge. Plaintiff insists, however that she should have been given notice and warning of the fact that the floor was being cleaned. She argues that a sign should have been posted, or the premises roped off, or that someone might have stood guard at the door. It was upon this ground alone that the learned trial judge submitted the case to the jury. The latter was instructed that there was no evidence of negligence with respect to the time of the operation, the quantity or nature of the material used, or the manner in which the work was done. The record shows that this action was entirely proper. But the jury was further told that there might be a finding of negligence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stark v. Lehigh Foundries, Inc.
...a danger that is obvious.' McCreery v. Westmoreland Farm Bureau Co-operative Association, 367 Pa. 567, 570, ; Walker v. Broad and Walnut Corp. et al., 320 Pa. 504, 506 ; Rice et al. v. Kring, 310 Pa. 550, 555 ; see also Restatement, Torts, sec. 'The presence of the power lines in and of its......
-
McCreery v. Westmoreland Farm Bureau Co-operative Association
... ... that is obvious: curt v. Ziman , supra; ... Walker v. Broad and Walnut Corporation et al., 320 ... Pa. 504, 506, 182 A. 643; ... ...
-
Curt v. Ziman
...reaching up into the chute. Defendant had no duty to anticipate the plaintiff would negligently expose himself to danger: Walker v. Broad and Walnut Corp., supra. For all appears in the record, defendant may have thought the plaintiff was reaching into the bucket or was taking the snow from......
-
Mondey v. Cont'l Realty Co.
...Railroad Co., 233 N.Y. 554, 135 N.E. 915;J. C. Penny Co. v. Robison, 128 Ohio St. 626, 193 N.E. 401, 100 A.L.R. 705;Walker v. Broad & Walnut Corp., 320 Pa. 504, 182 A. 643. In any event Union News Co. v. Freeborn, supra, is to be distinguished from the instant case in that the FreebornCase ......