Williamsburg Shop, Inc. v. Weeks, 4974
| Decision Date | 03 September 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 4974,4974 |
| Citation | 110 S.E.2d 189,201 Va. 244 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAMSBURG SHOP, INCORPORATED v. MAXINE BRYANT WEEKS. Record |
Aubrey R. Bowles, Jr. (H. Armistead Boyd; Bowles, Anderson, Boyd, Clarke & Herod, on brief), for the plaintiff in error.
Harry P. Anderson, Jr. (Donald R. Taylor; Satterfield, Anderson & Beazley, on brief), for the defendant in error.
On February 7, 1957, while Maxine Bryant Weeks, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, was a customer in a store operated by Williamsburg Shop, Incorporated, in the city of Williamsburg, she fell on a stairway and was injured. She filed an action at law against Williamsburg Shop, Incorporated, and Williamsburg Restoration, Incorporated, the latter being the owner of the premises, to recover damages for her injuries, claiming that her fall and injuries were caused by the negligent construction and maintenance of the stairway. There was a trial by a jury which resulted in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant, Williamsburg Shop, Incorporated, in the sum of $5,500, and in favor of the defendant, Williamsburg Restoration, Incorporated, upon which the trial court entered judgment. The matter is now before us on a writ of error granted the defendant, Williamsburg Shop, Incorporated, whose main contention is that the evidence fails to show that it was guilty of any negligence which was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's fall and injuries. No question has been raised as to the validity of the judgment in favor of Williamsburg Restoration, Incorporated, and that defendant is not concerned in this appeal.
For several years prior to the accident Williamsburg Shop, Incorporated, had conducted the department store on premises which it had leased from the owner, Williamsburg Restoration, Incorporated. The ladies' ready-to-wear department is located on the second floor which is reached by a stairway leading to an intermediate landing, then by several steps to a second landing, and then by other steps to the second floor.
On the day of the accident the plaintiff, aged thirty-three, who had been a frequent customer there, entered the store with her two young daughters and a friend, Mrs. Coddington, for the purpose of buying an evening dress for one of the daughters. After completing the purchase at the ladies' ready-to-wear department on the second floor and as the plaintiff descended the stairway, she fell and was injured. The descending stairway leads from the second floor to an intermediate landing which is 40 1/2 inches deep or wide from the bottom stair to the wall. On the wall opposite the stairway there is a showcase which does not reach the floor but extends over the landing and reduces its usable depth to 30 3/4 inches. On the left of the descending stairway is a handrail attached at the lower end to a newel post. On the left side of the stairway leading downward from the landing there is likewise a handrail attached to the newel post. On the sides of the stairway adjacent to the wall there are no handrails. The steps and landings are made of polished hardwood without carpet or other covering.
After the plaintiff had completed her purchase on the second floor, Mrs. Coddington and the Weeks daughters descended the stairway and reached the ground floor safely. Mrs. Weeks, the plaintiff, after lingering near the top of the stairs to talk with the manager of the department, started down the stairs leading to the landing. As she said, she went down the left-hand side holding onto the railing with her left hand and as she 'came down the first flight of stairs and started to turn on the landing' around the newel post for the purpose of going down the next flight of stairs, her right foot 'slipped off of the landing' and she fell. In the effort to break her fall, she said, she 'grabbed' the railing with her right hand and her face struck the railing, causing the principal injuries complained of. At the time she was wearing what she described as 'normal ladies' wearing shoes,' with an 'average heel.' The heels were 3 1/4 inches high in the rear, 2 1/2 inches high in the instep, and 9/16 by 9/16 of an inch across the bottom. It developed that when she slipped or fell the heel on her right shoe was broken off.
The undisputed evidence is that at the time the plaintiff fell there was no trash or debris on the stairway.
When the manager of the store was told of the plaintiff's fall he went to her assistance, offered her medical attention, and had her taken to a hospital. Before she left the store he asked her the cause of her fall. Her reply was that he should not 'worry' because it was not his 'fault,' that 'I tripped on my heel.' There was no denial of this testimony.
Admittedly, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
AlBritton v. Commonwealth
...or not, really matter because they are legally immaterial for two reasons. First, the Commonwealth reads Williamsburg Shop, Inc. v. Weeks , 201 Va. 244, 110 S.E.2d 189 (1959), as establishing that the absence of anti-slip treads on a staircase cannot be deemed a negligently created hazard a......
-
City of Suffolk v. Hewitt
...that the City was negligent in not continuing, without interruption, its policy of locking the boiler room door. Williamsburg Shop v. Weeks, 201 Va. 244, 110 S.E.2d 189 (1959), upon which the City relies, is distinguishable. In that case, an invitee fell as she descended a stairway in a sto......
-
Thomason v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company
...surmise, speculation and conjecture. This being true, it was error for the trial judge to refuse to set it aside. Williamsburg Shop v. Weeks, 201 Va. 244, 248, 110 S.E.2d 189; Woodson v. Germas, 200 Va. 205, 210, 104 S.E.2d The facts in the case at bar are clearly distinguishable from the f......
-
Pearson v. Canada Contracting Co., Inc.
...existed where premises thrown open to public and visitor entered for purpose for which premises open); Williamsburg Shop v. Weeks, 201 Va. 244, 246, 110 S.E.2d 189, 191 (1959) (customer in department store was Policemen and firemen, however, do not fit into any of these categories; they ent......