White v. E & F Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 25 June 1963
• Citation: White v. E & F Const. Co., 193 A.2d 716, 151 Conn. 110 (Conn. 1963)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: Georgia WHITE v. The E AND F CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 716

193 A.2d 716

151 Conn. 110

Georgia WHITE v.The E AND F CONSTRUCTION COMPANY.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 25, 1963.

Irwin E. Friedman, Bridgeport, with whom were Albert J. Kleban, Bridgeport, and, on the brief, Arthur Levy, Jr., Bridgeport, for appellant(plaintiff).

Ivan A. Hirsch, Bridgeport, with whom, on the brief, was Edgar W. Krentzman, Bridgeport, for appellee(defendant).

Before BALDWIN, C. J., and KING, MURPHY, SHEA and ALCORN, JJ.

SHEA, Associate Justice.

The plaintiff, an invitee, sustained injuries as a result of a fall on a basement stairway.At the close of the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict for the defendant.The plaintiff has appealed, assigning as error the denial of her motion to set aside the verdict.

From the evidence most favorable to the plaintiff, the jury could reasonably have found the following facts: In May, 1958, the plaintiff was employed as a domestic by one of the tenants in an apartment house owned by the defendant in Bridgeport.The rear entrance to the building, the basement stairway and the landing above the stairway were used in common by the various tenants and were under the control of the defendant.The landing and the stairway were made of concrete and had been recently painted, so that they had a shiny or glossy finish.There is one step leading from the backyard to the landing.On May 7, about 2:30 p.m., the plaintiff left the apartment house by the front door and went into the yard to remove some laundry from the clothesline.It was raining at the time.The clothes were wet, and the plaintiff intended to hang them in the cellar to dry.She put them into a basket and entered the house through the back door.As she started to step from the landing to go down the stairs, her feet slipped from under her and she fell to the basement floor.After her fall, she noticed that the landing was wet.The door to the rear entry was propped open at the time, and rain was coming through the doorway.The plaintiff's employer had occupied an apartment in the defendant's building for more than a month, and during that time the door to the rear entrance was open most of the time.There was a rainy spell from May 3 through May 7, and rain had fallen during some part of each one of those days.About two minutes before the plaintiff fell, her employer had noticed that the steps were wet by reason of rain which was coming through the open doorway.

From the memorandum of decision denying the motion to set aside the verdict, it appears that the court directed the verdict on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the defendant had notice of the condition which caused the plaintiff's fall.The direction of a verdict is justified if upon the evidence the jury could not reasonably and legally reach any other conclusion than that embodied in the verdict as rendered.Lurier v. Danbury Bus Corporation, 144 Conn. 544, 547, 135 A.2d 597.The jury could have found that the plaintiff's fall was caused by the wet condition of the landing.However, before the jury could find that the defendant was liable for the plaintiff's injuries, it was necessary to show that the defendant knew of the unsafe condition, or was chargeable with notice of it because, had it exercised a reasonable inspection of the premises, it would have known of the condition.Laflin v. Lomas & Nettleton Co., 127 Conn. 61, 64, 13 A.2d 760;Smeriglio v. Connecticut Savings Bank, 129 Conn. 461, 462, 29 A.2d 443;Morris v. King Cole Stores, Inc., 132 Conn. 489, 492, 45 A.2d 710.There is nothing to indicate that the defendant had...