CAMPBELL v BOZEMAN CMM HOTEL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12249 I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A OR F F OTN C R L LEA CAMPBELL, AO P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , B O Z W N C M U I Y HOTEL, O M NT d/b/a BAXTER HOTEL, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Lyman H. Bennett, Jr . argued, Bozeman, Montana. For Respondent: Brown and G i l b e r t , Bozeman, Montana. Gene I. Brown argued, Bozeman, Montana. - - Submitted: September 27, 1972 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l by p l a i n t i f f , Carol Lea Campbell, from a judgment f o r defendant, Bozeman Community H o t e l , d / b / a / Baxter Hotel i n Bozeman, Montana, i n an a c t i o n f o r p e r s o n a l i n j u r i e s brought by p l a i n t i f f i n t h e e i g h t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of G a l l a t i n . The undisputed f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e a c t i o n i s t h a t on May 7 , 1971, p l a i n t i f f was a b u s i e s s i n v i t e e i n t h e Baxter Hotel d u r i n g t h e noon lunch hour and f e l l w h i l e descending a s t a i r w a y i n t h e h o t e l , s u s t a i n i n g a l a c e r a t i o n on h e r r i g h t l e g of approximately seven i n c h e s i n l e n g t h a s a r e s u l t of t h e fall. The p h y s i c a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n of t h e h o t e l i n c l u d e s a d i n i n g room, lobby, and o f f i c e on t h e f i r s t f l o o r and a rest-room on t h e mezzanine. I n t h e lobby was a s t a i r w a y ascending t o t h e mez- zanine which was open t o h o t e l p a t r o n s u s i n g t h e rest-room facilities. The s t e p s of t h e s t a i r w a y c o n s i s t e d of a f l a t h a r d s u r f a c e d s t o n e m a t e r i a l c a l l e d " t e r r a z o " w i t h t h e l e a d i n g edge of each s t e p covered w i t h a metal s t r i p . P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d t h a t on t h e day of t h e a c c i d e n t , a f t e r completing lunch, s h e ascended t h e s t a i r s t o u s e t h e rest-room and upon r e t u r n i n g down t h e s t a i r w a y s l i p p e d a t approximately t h e f o u r t h s t a i r from t h e bottom and f e l l t h e remaining f o u r s t a i r s , l a c e r a t i n g h e r r i g h t l e g on one of t h e lower s t a i r s , P l a i n t i f f a l l e g e d t h a t due t o d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n t maintenance of t h e s t a i r w a y she s u f f e r e d damages f o r l o s s of wages i n t h e amount of $283.50, medical expenses o f $138.95, and f u r t h e r u n s p e c i f i e d f u t u r e medical expense which she a n t i c i p a t e s ; a l l of which t o t a l e d a demand i n t h e amount of $5,422.45, costs. plus ~ e f e n d a n t ' sanswer alleged t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s complaint f a i l e d t o s t a t e a claim a g a i n s t t h e defendant and denied a l l a l l e g a t i o n s made by p l a i n t i f f . A p r e t r i a l conference was held on November 29, 1971, r e s u l t i n g i n a p r e t r i a l order dated December 1 7 , 1971, which contained s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e i d e n t i c a l a l l e g a t i o n s of both p a r t i e s with t h e s i n g l e a d d i t i o n t h a t defendant a l l e g e d t h e p l a i n t i f f was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . The i s s u e of law thus s e t f o r t r i a l was whether negligence of t h e defendant proximately caused p l a i n t i f f ' s i n j u r y and whether p l a i n t i f f was c o n t r i b u t o r i l y n e g l i g e n t . T r i a l began on December 1 7 , 1971, with a s i x man j u r y by agreement of t h e p a r t i e s pursuant t o s e c t i o n 93-1205, R.C.M. 1947. T r i a l was then adjourned u n t i l December 21, 1971, and on t h e same day i t concluded with a jury v e r d i c t and judgment f o r defendant, Baxter Hotel. P l a i n t i f f appeals from t h a t v e r d i c t and judgment. Appellant r a i s e s these i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Was t h e jury e n t i t l e d t o disregard t h e undisputed testimony of p l a i n t i f f and h e r witnesses t h a t p l a i n t i f f a s a business i n v i t e e i n the h o t e l operated by t h e defendant caught h e r h e e l while descending a stairway open f o r h e r use a s such business i n v i t e e because of a p r o j e c t i o n of a metal s t r i p not open t o observation and of which she was n o t warned by defendant and a s a r e s u l t i n j u r e d h e r s e l f ? 2, Was t h e p l a i n t i f f e n t i t l e d t o a v e r d i c t i n t h i s a c t i o n ? 3, Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n denying p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a t t h e c l o s e of a l l t h e evidence i n t h i s c a s e ? 4. Did the c o u r t e r r i n denying p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r new t r i a l i n t h i s a c t i o n ? I n the evidence p l a i n t i f f produced a t t r i a l she attempted 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 d e f e c t i v e o r hazardous stairway, P l a i n t i f f ' s claim was predicated upon t h e theory t h a t t h e metal s t r i p on t h e s t a i r was r a i s e d and h e r h e e l caught on t h a t metal strip, causing her to fall. Plaintiff drew a picture to illustrate to the jury how her heel caught on the metal strip, She also physically demonstrated to the jury the manner in which she descended the stairs and how her heel caught on the metal strip. The testimony of plaintiff's witness, Mrs. Fred Davis, who had accompanied plaintiff on the day of the accident, was offered to show that the mother of Mrs. Davis had, on one or two occa- sions, caught her heel on the stairway in question, Defendant, on cross-examination of Mrs. Davis, developed evidence that the mother of Mrs. Davis was elderly. Mrs. Davis testified: 11 I will be very honest with you. My mother liked to wear very high heels and a little higher than for her age, and I was concerned about her. She had stumbled a couple of times, so I was concerned for myself. " Defendant's evidence chiefly involved the testimony of its sole witness, Duncan MacNab, a professional photographer. In addition to photographs of the stairs, MacNab used a straight-edge yardstick in the taking of one photograph to show that the metal strip was not raised. In his testimony, MacNab supported and explained the use of the straight-edge yardstick in taking the photograph. He testified the metal strip on the stair was not raised. Plaintiff argued at trial, and on appeal, that the photographs and testimony of MacNab pertained to the condition of the stairs in November 1971 when the pictures were taken and again on December 16, 1971, the day before the trial, when MacNab had again investigated the stairs. Plaintiff argues that no evidence was offered by defendant as to the condition of th.e stairway on the date of the accident, therefore, the testimony of Mrs. Davis and of plaintiff remains undisputed, From an examination of Mrs. Davis' testimony, it is apparent that she did not see a raised metal strip as she descended the stairs in front of plaintiff and the only testimony that she could offer in regard to the stairway was concerning her mother's experience with the stairway on other occasions. P l a i n t i f f ' s d i r e c t testimony was t h a t she caught h e r h e e l on t h e metal s t r i p which she s a i d extended above t h e s t a i r s u r f a c e b u t was n o t n o t i c e a b l e a s she descended t h e s t a i r w a y . On cross-examination, she t e s t i f i e d s h e never saw t h e r a i s e d metal s t r i p b e f o r e h e r f a l l and c o r r e c t e d t h e answer she had o r i g i n a l l y given i n d e p o s i t i o n testimony. She a l s o t e s t i f i e d she d i d n o t examine t h e s t a i r s a f t e r s h e f e l l , and then admitted she never d i d a c t u a l l y s e e t h a t t h e metal s t r i p was raised. F i n a l l y , upon r e b u t t a l testimony and recross-examina- t i o n , she t e s t i f i e d : Now, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f a l l t h a t you had i n t h e Baxter Hotel on May 7 t h i s y e a r , was t h e r e o r was t h e r e n o t something t h a t caused you t o t r i p and f a l l ? A . Yes, s i r . "Q. "Q. "MR. BENNETT: A.No, s i r . And d i d you observe i t b e f o r e you f e l l ? That i s a l l . "THE COURT: You may c r o s s . "BY MR. BROWN: "Q. Miss Campbell, do you know what i t was t h a t you t r i p p e d on ? I have no i d e a , b u t t h e r e was something t h e r e t h a t caused m t o t r i p and f a l l . " e "A. The s i n g l e i s s u e h e r e i n v o l v e s t h e b a s i c q u e s t i o n of whether o r n o t t h e s t a i r w a y was d e f e c t i v e . T h i s Court r e c e n t l y s t a t e d i n L a u r i e v . M & L R e a l t y Corp,, Mont . , 498 P.2d 1192, 29 St.Rep. 478, t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f has t h e burden of proving both negligence and proximate cause t o s u s t a i n a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f based on a l l e g e d negligence. Thus, a p l a i n t i f f cannot recover without proof of negligence on t h e p a r t of a defendant. The mere f a c t t h a t a p l a i n t i f f t r i p s and f a l l s does n o t make a defendant l i a b l e . The owner of b u s i n e s s premises i s n o t an i n s u r e r a g a i n s t a l l a c c i d e n t s which might b e f a l l b u s i n e s s i n v i t e e s on h i s premises. v . Linder-Kind Lumber Co., McIntosh 144 Mont. 1, 393 P.2d 782; Mellon v. K e l l y , 99 Mont. 10, 4 1 P.2d 49. The s i n g l e f a c t t h a t t h i s Court f i n d s i n t h e r e c o r d s u p p o r t i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s prima f a c i e c a s e i s t h e unexplained f a c t t h a t p l a i n t i f f f e l l on t h e s t a i r w a y of t h e Baxter Hotel. N evidence h a s o been adduced a s t o proof of a r a i s e d metal s t r i p , which p l a i n t i f f f i r s t t e s t i f i e d t o i n h e r d e p o s i t i o n , b u t l a t e r changed, Subs e q u e n t l y , a t t r i a l , she t e s t i f i e d she d i d n o t know what o b j e c t she t r i p p e d over. I n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t t o t h e claimed t e s t i m o n i a l proof of a d e f e c t , d e f e n d a n t ' s w i t n e s s produced photographs and testimony t h a t a s of November 1971, t h e r e was no d e f e c t i n t h e n a t u r e of a r a i s e d metal s t r i p . Even g r a n t i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e evidence o f f e r e d by defendant because t h e photographs were taken s i x months a f t e r t h e a c c i d e n t , t h e burden of proving a breach of duty by way of a d e f e c t c a u s i n g i n j u r y was n o t met by p l a i n t i f f . Other testimony i n t h e r e c o r d r e v e a l s t h a t t h e s t a i r w a y i n q u e s t i o n had a h a n d r a i l which was b e i n g used by p l a i n t i f f a t t h e time she f e l l , S i m i l a r l y , i t was e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t l i g h t i n g and v i s i b i l i t y were n o t f a c t o r s i n t h e a c c i d e n t . I t was f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f was acquainted w i t h t h e s t a i r w a y and had used i t over a p e r i o d of y e a r s . I t t h u s remains t h a t t h e f a t a l flaw i n p l a i n t i f f ' s c a s e was t h e i n a b i l i t y of p l a i n t i f f t o show a d e f e c t which caused t h e i n j u r i e s complained of i n t h e n a t u r e of n e g l i g e n t mairtenance of the stairway. The j u r y ' s conclusion was t h a t defendant was n o t g u i l t y of negligence and t h a t p l a i n t i f f t r i p p e d and f e l l by her own d e v i c e s . W f i n d nothing t o d e The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s . ~ s s o c i d e ustices. J
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.
