Williamson v. Derry Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 04 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 2932.,2932. |
| Citation | 196 A. 265 |
| Parties | WILLIAMSON v. DERRY ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Transferred from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Johnston, Judge.
Case for negligence by Sally Williamson against the Derry Electric Company. Verdict for the plaintiff, and case transferred on defendant's exceptions.
Judgment on the verdict.
Case, for negligence. Trial by jury and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred by Johnston, J., on exceptions to the denial of the defendant's motions for a directed verdict and to set the verdict aside, to the charge, and to the allowance of argument. The opinion sufficiently states the facts.
McLane, Davis & Carleton, of Manchester (John P. Carleton, of Manchester, orally), for plaintiff. John J. Sheehan, of Manchester, for defendant.
The plaintiff was hurt by slipping and falling on the floor of the defendant's office, which she had entered on a business errand. The floor had a special linoleum covering. It had been waxed, and afterwards, and on the morning of the day she was injured, polished. The day was rainy and the floor was wet from the water of umbrellas and rubbers of persons who had visited the office earlier than the plaintiff.
The defendant admits its duty of care to keep its office in a safe condition for those having proper occasion to enter it, but argues that to impose liability here would require it to furnish safety in spite of care. As sufficient answer, it might be found chargeable in the exercise of care with the duty to anticipate that if its freshly waxed and polished floor became wet, a danger would be produced which called for measures to be taken to avoid it, and that persons entering the office on a rainy day would naturally cause the floor to become wet. Care to such extent was properly to be found as no less than persons in general would take under the circumstances and in the defendant's position. No absolute duty to secure safety is accordingly imposed. "Nothing was placed upon it [the floor] to assist a firm footing and no warning was given of slipperiness." Blake v. Great A. & P. Tea Company, 266 Mass. 12, 164 N.E. 486.
Nor is the plaintiff to be held careless as a matter of law. Her knowledge of the floor covering was not notice of the work done on it, which findably was required to make it unduly slippery if it became wet. Moreover, the defendant appears to have conceded the lack of evidence of contributory fault. By the charge liability was predicated solely on its fault with no statement of discharge therefrom if she was at fault. With no exception in respect thereto the charge became binding as the law of the trial.
The rulings that there was a case for the jury and that the verdict was not contrary to the law and evidence were correct.
In argument plaintiff's counsel suggested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sargent v. Ross
...maintaining a perfectly obvious danger of which plaintiffs are fully aware.' 2 Harper and James, supra at 1493; Williamson v. Derry Elec. Co., 89 N.H. 216, 196 A. 265 (1938) (slippery floor); Cummings v. Prater,95 Ariz. 20, 386 P.2d 27 (1963). Additionally, while the dangerous quality of th......
-
Hewitt v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
...ed. 1964). To relieve against an assumption of risk, the principle has been applied in favor of invitees, see Williamson v. Derry Elec. Co., 89 N.H. 216, 196 A. 265, 266-267 (1938); see also King Soopers, Inc. v. Mitchell, 140 Colo. 119, 342 P.2d 1006, 1010 (1959); Morris v. Atlantic & Paci......
-
Zielinski v. Cornwell
...on this jury instruction because it became the law of the trial and is binding on the parties to this appeal. Williamson v. Derry Electric Co., 89 N.H. 216, 196 A. 265; Larose v. Porter, 87 N.H. 241, 177 A. 297. See also, Gentes v. St. Peter, 105 Vt. 103, 163 A. The court could find upon th......
-
Hale v. Sequoyah Caverns and Campgrounds, Inc.
..."open and obvious danger" defense and instead using standard of "ordinary care under the circumstances"); Williamson v. Derry Electric Co., 89 N.H. 216, 196 A. 265 (1938) (holding that invitee's knowledge and appreciation of danger do not discharge landowner's duty to provide a reasonably s......