Walker v. The Memorial Hospital, Record No. 3264.

• Citation: 187 Va. 5
• Decision Date: 12 January 1948
• Docket Number: Record No. 3264.
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia
• Parties: IRMA BLAIR WALKER v. THE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.

Page 5

187 Va. 5

IRMA BLAIR WALKER v. THE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.

Record No. 3264.

Supreme Court of Virginia, Richmond.

January 12, 1948.

Present, Hudgins, C.J., and Gregory, Eggleston, Spratley, Buchanan and Staples, JJ.

1. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Negligence — Degree of Care Owed Invitee. — A hospital, although a charitable corporation, owes an invitee, a visitor, the duty to exercise ordinary care to have its premises in a reasonably safe condition.

2. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Negligence — Degree of Care to Be Exercised by Visitor. — It is incumbent upon an invitee, a visitor at a hospital, to exercise reasonable care for his own safety.

3. APPEAL AND ERROR — Verdict — Effect of Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff. — The verdict of a jury in favor of the plaintiff entitles him on appeal to have all conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences resolved in his favor.

4. NEGLIGENCE — Failure to Remove Snow and Ice from Outdoor Entrance Walk, Platform, or Steps — Liability to Invitee. — A business establishment, landlord, carrier, or other inviter, in the absence of unusual circumstances, is permitted to await the end of the storm and a reasonable time thereafter to remove ice and snow from an outdoor entrance walk, platform, or steps. The general controlling principle is that changing conditions due to the pending storm render it inexpedient and impracticable to take earlier effective action, and that ordinary care does not require it.

5. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Negligence — Liability for Failure to Remove Snow and Ice from Entrance — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action against a hospital to recover damages resulting from injuries sustained by plaintiff when she fell down the steps of the hospital as she was leaving after a visit to her husband, the evidence showed that snow had been falling, off and on, during the greater part of the day, and that defendant had cleaned the snow off the steps and the platform prior to plaintiff's arrival; that the weather had turned into a freezing rain about two hours before and continued up to the time of the accident; that the platform and steps upon which plaintiff fell were well lighted and were provided with handrailings on both sides. No complaint was made by plaintiff that there was any defect in the structural condition of the platform or steps. The accident happened while the storm, which alone caused the hazardous condition, was in progress.

Held: That the evidence failed to show that defendant was derelict in its duty of exercising ordinary care for plaintiff's safety. Every pedestrian who ventures out when the weather renders premises and all exposed places slippery, knows he is risking the chance of a fall and of a possible serious injury. It is a hazard to which nature subjects all alike, and it would be an unreasonable rule which would impose upon an inviter the necessity of repeated excursions into a storm, with the attendant risks of exposure and injury to himself, in order to relieve the invitee of all risk from a natural hazard.

6. HOSPITALS AND ASYLUMS — Liability for Negligence — Failure to Warn Invitee of Slippery Condition of Platform and Steps — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action against a hospital to recover damages resulting from injuries sustained by plaintiff when she fell down the steps of the hospital as she was leaving after a visit to her husband, the evidence showed that plaintiff when she entered the hospital had knowledge that it had been snowing and the steps were damp looking and the day was cloudy and bad. For more than two hours before her departure the sleet or freezing rain had been falling. Plaintiff stated that no one had told her or warned her of the slippery condition of the platform or steps, although there had been a previous fall of another person who reported it to the hospital. There was no evidence that the hospital had any reason to believe that plaintiff did not know of the sleet, since it had been falling more than two hours.

Held: That the hospital authorities were not charged with knowledge that plaintiff had not been outdoors since the sleet began, and it was not incumbent upon them to warn her of a condition, the existence of which was due to action of the elements, and which ordinary care did not require defendant to remedy. Since the storm had not finally terminated, the exercise of reasonable care no more required defendant to warn of the result of the weather than it did to remedy the result.

Error to a judgment of the Corporation Court of the city of Danville. Hon. Willis D. Miller, judge, designate, presiding.

The opinion states the case.

Waldo G. Miles and A. M. Aiken, for the plaintiff in error.

Edwin B. Meade and Rutledge C. Clement, for the defendant in error.

STAPLES, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error, Mrs. Walker, sued The Memorial Hospital, a Danville charitable corporation, for damages resulting from personal injuries sustained by her when she fell down the steps of the hospital as she was leaving after a visit to her husband, who was a patient there. Her notice of motion for judgment alleges that the defendant was negligent in allowing the ice to accumulate on the apron and steps of the main hospital entrance; that she slipped on the ice and fell. The "apron" is a platform or uncovered porch leading from the top of the steps to the entrance door. The defendant filed a plea of not guilty upon which the issue was joined. The trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for $9000, which the corporation court set aside as contrary to the law and the evidence, and entered final judgment for the defendant, to review which we granted this writ of error.

1, 2 The parties are in agreement that the trial court correctly held that the hospital, though a charitable corporation, owed Mrs. Walker the duty to exercise ordinary care to have its premises in a reasonably safe condition, since as a visitor she occupied the legal status of an invitee. We so held in a similar case, Hospital of St. Vincent of Paul Thompson, 116 Va. 101, 81 S.E. 13, 51 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1025. On the other hand, it is not denied that it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to exercise reasonable care for her own safety. It is the appropriate application of these principles to the evidence that we are called upon to consider.

The plaintiff's position is that the defendant knew of the slippery and dangerous condition of the platform and steps; that such knowledge had been brought to its attention by the previous fall of another person who reported it to the hospital; that it was negligence on the part of the defendant not to remedy the condition; that it was also negligence on its part not to notify or warn the plaintiff of said slippery and dangerous condition before permitting her to leave by the main entrance at nine o'clock that night, and that, as she had no knowledge or means of knowledge of said slippery condition, she was without fault on her part.

The defendant, on the other hand, asserts that snow had been falling, off and on, during the greater part of the day; that it had cleaned the snow off the steps and platform prior to Mrs. Walker's arrival about four-thirty; that the weather had turned into a freezing rain sometime before seven o'clock which continued up to the time of the accident at nine; that in the exercise of ordinary care it was not incumbent upon the defendant to undertake to remedy the icy condition, or keep plaintiff advised with respect thereto, so long as the sleet continued to fall; that the platform and steps were well lighted and were provided with handrailings on both sides, and that, on the whole case, as a matter of law it was guilty of no negligence. It also insists that the plaintiff failed to use reasonable care for her own safety; that she should have worn rubbers instead of high heel shoes when she visited the hospital, as she knew of the snow and cloudy weather at that time; that the platform and steps were adequately lighted and because of such previous knowledge of the stormy conditions she should have ascertained the true situation with respect to the outside premises before undertaking to descend the steps, and that therefore the plaintiff was guilty of negligence on her part, which was the sole cause of the accident.

3 The jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff entitles her to have all conflicts in the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom resolved in her favor. We will apply this principle in the following review of the evidence.

The plaintiff's testimony was in substance as follows: She arrived at the hospital about the hour of four-thirty on the afternoon of December 13, 1945, for a visit to her sick husband and remained until the close of the visiting period at nine o'clock that night. She had made a number of previous visits to see him and was familiar with the entrance. When she went in that afternoon there was no ice, but she noticed that the snow which had fallen had been swept to the sides of the steps and platform and that the steps were damp looking. The skies were cloudy at this time. She knew it had snowed that morning but if it had snowed in the afternoon she had no knowledge of it, but the weather was cold and it was a bad day. When Mrs. Walker's visit ended and she left the hospital about nine that night, she says she opened the door of the lobby, stepped down on the platform, walked across it and caught hold of the railing at the head of the steps on her left side. This railing extends from the wall of the building proper near the entrance door, along the sides of the platform and along the entire length of the steps on each side. When she took hold of the railing she was about sixteen inches from the snow piled along the side. The steps did not appear to be covered with a sheet of ice when she started down and she did not notice it or know the ice was there. She did not see any ice on...