Lundgren v. Gimbel Bros.

The following opinion was filed November 9, 1926:

No evidence was offered or contention made,'that the stairway in question was dangerous on account'of. being ¡unlighted or of. improper construction. Be*523cause there was no evidence showing that through any carelessness of any of defendant’s employees the slippery substance was spilled on the step and no evidence that it had been there, prior to plaintiff’s fall, any such appreciable length of timé that the defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care in the supervision of such matters, should have known of its existence and thereby become charged with the duty of removing it, the trial court held, and 'we think rightly, that there was no showing of a breach by defendant of any duty it owed to the plaintiff’s wife.

The liability of the defendant for such a circumstance cannot be based upon the mere fact of the depositing of such substance on the stairway, but would arise because of failure to promptly remove the same after actual or constructive notice of its existence. There was here no showing of either. If it had been left there by one of defendant’s employees, that fact would have been material in charging defendant with actual and immediate notice of its existence; if by some third person, then actual or constructive notice to defendant of its presence must be shown, the duty to remove being the same in either instance.

This case is ruled by such decisions as Appel v. Ruggaber, 180 Wis. 298, 301, 192 N. W. 993; Kaszubowski v. Johnson S. Co. 151 Wis. 149, 154, 138 N. W. 54; Zugbie v. J. R. Whipple Co. 230 Mass. 19, 119 N. E. 191; Norton v. Hudner, 213 Mass. 257, 100 N. E. 546; Graham v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 277 S. W. 223. See note 33 A. L. R. 181.

By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.

The following opinion was filed November 17, 1926:

(dissenting). It is a verity in the case that the stairway in question was used by the employees of defendant in carrying food to its public cafeteria. This not only justifies but compels the inference that the salad dressing *524upon the step which caused plaintiff to slip came from a bowl or dish carried by defendant’s employees. Whether the presence of the salad dressing upon the step was due to the negligence of an employee or to an unavoidable accident, the further inference may.be indulged that the employee knew what happened and that such employee had knowledge of it’s presence upon the step. This knowledge was knowledge of the defendant. The stairs were in constant use by the patrons of the cafeteria, and whether the defendant acted with sufficient promptness in eliminating the condition so dangerous to those using the stairs was, in my opinion, a question for the. jury.

A motion for a rehearing was denied, with $25 costs, on January 11, 1927.