LAURIE v M L REALTY CORP

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12121 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN M R A E LAURIE, AG RT P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , M & L REALTY CORPORATION, Defendant and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Charles Luedke, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: Fox Appellant : William T, K e l l y argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Keefer and Roybal, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent : Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson & G a l l a g h e r , B i l l i n g s , Montana, Stephen H. F o s t e r argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. Submitted: Decided : May 16, 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e t h i r t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Yellowstone'County, e n t e r e d a f t e r t h e c o u r t d i r e c t e d a v e r d i c t i n f a v o r of defendant a t t h e c l o s e of t h e c a s e . P l a i n t i f f , Margaret L a u r i e , brought a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r damages f o r i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n a f a l l down a s t a i r w a y . t i f f was an employee of Colborn School Supply, I n c . Plain- Defendant, M & L R e a l t y Corporation owned t h e b u i l d i n g i n which Colborn operated i t s business. Colborn l e a s e d a p o r t i o n of t h e b u i l d i n g from defendant and occupied a l l of t h e main f l o o r of t h e b u i l d i n g , except one c o r n e r room which was used by t h e Bookmobile S e r v i c e f o r t h e B i l l i n g s Parmly L i b r a r y . Colborn u t i l i z e d i t s space on t h e main f l o o r p r i m a r i l y f o r o f f i c e s , f r e i g h t r e c e i v i n g and s h i p ? i n g , and a r e t a i l s t o r e i t was developing. The second f l o o r of t h e b u i l d i n g was used by Colborn a s a s t o r a g e p l a c e f o r i t s merchandise, and a s a r e c e i v i n g - s h i p p i n g department. A s t a i r w a y and an e l e v a t o r l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e space occupied by Colborn provided a c c e s s between t h e two f l o o r s . The c o n d i t i o n of t h e s t a i r w a y when Colborn f i r s t took p o s s e s s i o n under i t s l e a s e was n o t shown. The only evidence r e l a t i v e t o t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e s t a i r w a y was p l a i n t i f f ' s own testimony and t h e testimony of Joanne R o s t , an employee of Colborn, who began working about s i x t e e n months b e f o r e p l a i n t i f f f e l l on t h e s t a i r s . Both w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t a i r s were o l d and s t e e p , a s w e l l a s cupped, rounded and worn. A h a n d r a i l was l o c a t e d on one s i d e of t h e s t a i r w a y , b u t n o t on t h e o t h e r . The s t a i r w a y was i l l u m i n a t e d by a window a t t h e t o p and one l i g h t b u l b . A heavy metal door a t t h e t o p of t h e s t a i r s opened o n t o t h e l a n d i n g . P l a i n t i f f s t a r t e d working f o r Colborn about f o u r months p r i o r t o t h e day she f e l l on t h e s t a i r s . Her job a s a c l e r k i n the retail store Colborn was establishing on the main floor frequently required her to move merchandise stored on the second floor down to the retail store on the first or main floor. When she had heavy loads of merchandise to move, she loaded it into a cart and used the freight elevator. lighter items down the stairs. She handcarried She had been up and down the stairs hundreds of times during the time she worked for Colborn, and according to her own testimony, knew the condition of the stairway. Occasionally, a customer of Colborn would go up the stairs to the second floor of the building to look at merchandise. Plaintiff fell down the stairs on November 25, 1966, while carrying merchandise from the second floor to a customer in the retail store. The complaint alleges with particularity that the stairway was dangerous because (1) the door at the top was unsafe, (2) there was no handrail on the left side, (3) the 4 top step was slippery, and ( ) the lighting was inadequate. However, plaintiff's entire testimony on direct examination regarding the cause of her fall consisted only of the following question and answer: "Q. Would you please tell us why you fell. "A. Well, as I see it, when I had to come to the door with my packages in my left hand, I pushed with my right arm, being right-handed, and a little bit with my right shoulder to help me start the door opening. I stepped over to one side with my parcels in my left hand and waited for the door to start closing. You're in a small, kind of an inconvenient pattern when you do this. you're standing over away from the stair landing as you're waiting for the door to close. And then I carreback a couple of steps and got my self ready for my descent. I grabbed the handrail and started off the first step and fell." la in tiff's testimony on cross-examination added this: The door. With respect to the door at the top of the stairs, she testified: "Q. And you opened the door with your right hand and right shoulder? A. Right. And then you stepped onto t h e l a n d i n g a t "Q. t h e t o p ? A. Yes. "Q. As I u n d e r s t a n d i t , you allowed t h e door t o c l o s e ? A. I t had c l o s e d , y e s , when I s t a r t e d down the s t a i r s . "Q. The door had a l r e a d y c l o s e d behind you when you Yes. s t a r t e d down t h e s t a i r s . A. And t h e door d i d n ' t bump you o r a n y t h i n g when "Q. i t c l o s e d . A. No. 11 Lack of r a i l i n g on l e f t s i d e . P l a i n t i f f ' s testimony f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e l a c k of a r a i l i n g on t h e l e f t s i d e had n o t h i n g t o do w i t h h e r f a l l . She t e s t i f i e d : As I understand i t , w i t h your r i g h t hand you "Q. grabbed o n t o t h e r a i l i n g , i s t h a t r i g h t ? A. I reached over f o r t h e r i g h t - h a n d r a i l i n g , y e s . And you a c t u a l l y g o t your hand o n t o t h e r a i l i n g , "Q. d i d n ' t you? A. I had ahold of i t . "Q. And, of c o u r s e , t h e l e f t hand had merchandise i n i t , d i d n ' t i t ? A. Right. I I Illumination. P l a i n t i f f a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e l i g h t i n g condi- t i o n s were n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r h e r a c c i d e n t . She t e s t i f i e d w i t h respect t o the lighting: Now, where were you looking a s you s t a r t e d "Q. down t h e s t a i r s ? A. Looking down towards m f e e t . y "Q. A. II Q. And you could s e e your f e e t , c o u l d n ' t you? Yes. You could a l s o s e e t h e s t a i r s ? A. Yes. I t was l i g h t enough s o you could s e e b o t h your "Q. f e e t and t h e s t a i r s . A. I d i d s e e them, y e s . So t h a t t h e l i g h t i n g r e a l l y d i d n ' t have much "Q. Not i n i t s e l f , t o do w i t h your f a l l t h e n , d i d i t ? A. no, s i r . II know That p l a i n t i f f d i d n o t l w h e t h e r h e r f a l l was caused by t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e s t e p s o r by some o t h e r f a c t o r i s i l l u s t r a t e d by t h i s testimony: Now, a f t e r you f e l l you went back up t h e s t a i r s "Q. ---you remember your testimony----to s e e i f t h e r e was any extraneous o b j e c t on t h e s t a i r s t h a t would have caused you t o f a l l . A. Would you s a y t h a t a g a i n ? I d i d n ' t hear t h a t . L a t e r i n t h e day a f t e r you f e l l you went "Q. u p s t a i r s t o s e e i f t h e r e was a n y t h i n g , any e x t r a n e o u s o b j e c t on t h e s t a i r s . A. Yes, I d i d . 'Q. And you d i d n ' t f i n d a n y t h i n g ? found a n y t h i n g , no. I ' A. I never Although t h e s t a i r w a y was d e s c r i b e d a s " s l i c k " o r 11 s l i p p e r y ' ' i n p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint and i n h e r b r i e f , t h e r e i s no evidence t o e s t a b l i s h t h i s a l l e g a t i o n . Neither p l a i n t i f f nor Joanne Rost t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e s t a F r s were s l i p p e r y . The f o r e g o i n g f a c t s a r e what a r e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e abbrev i a t e d r e c o r d on a p p e a l . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on t h e ground t h a t t h e evidence f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e of a duty owing from M & L R e a l t y Corporation t o p l a i n tiff. Defendant a l s o u r g e s t h a t t h e evidence f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h p l a i n t i f f ' s f a l l was caused by t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e s t a i r w a y , r a t h e r t h a n from some o t h e r f a c t o r . The i s s u e urged on a p p e a l i s whether t h e d i s t r i c t , c o u r t erred i n granting a directed verdict. W add t h a t i f t h e d i s t r i c t e c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n , i t i s i m m a t e r i a l what r e a s o n s were a s s i g n e d t h e r e f o r . Advance-Rumely Thresher Co. v , Kruger, 93 Mont. 66, 7 2 , 16 P.2d 1102, 1104. Here, t h e evidence simply f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n of t h e s t a i r w a y caused a p p e l l a n t ' s f a l l . n o t blame t h e f a l ' l Appellant did on t h e s t a i r w a y ; she t e s t i f i e d t h a t "I came back a c o u p l e of s t e p s and g o t myself r e a d y f o r m d e s c e n t . y I grabbed t h e h a n d r a i l and s t a r t e d o f f t h e f i r s t s t e p and f e l l . " On cross-examination she excluded t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e door a t t h e t o p of t h e s t a i r s , t h e l i g h t i n g , o r t h e l a c k of a h a n d r a i l on t h e l e f t s i d e caused h e r t o f a l l . t h e s t e p s were s l i p p e r y . There was no evidence t h a t It i s fundmental t h a t t h e evidence must tend n o t o n l y t o show t h e n e g l i g e n c e a l l e g e d , b u t a l s o t h e c a u s a l connection between i t and t h e i n j u r y . Co., Jackson v. William Dingwall 145 Mont. 1 2 7 , 134, 399 P.2d 236, 240. Under the evidence i n t h i s record the cause of the f a l l i s a matter of conjecture. The f a c t t h a t l a t e r i n the day she checked the stairway t o see i f she f e l l on some extraneous object demons t r a t e s she does n o t know what caused h e r f a l l . Having reviewed the abbreviated record and the i s s u e s presented, we f i n d no e r r o r . The judgment i s affirmed. ~ s s o c i a tJ u s t i c e s Associate J u s t i c e s .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.