| Wis. | Mar 22, 1904
There was doubtless ample evidence tending to show negligence on the part of the defendants in the management of this elevator. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that it was located in a dark corner of the office room, and so arranged that in the daytime it was nearly or quite impossible to see into the shaft; that no light was maintained either outside of the shaft or inside of the car during the day-. time; and that on the occasion in question the door of the 'shaft was left partway open when the car was not there. This court has said that it is the duty of the proprietors of passenger elevators to see that they are “properly and safely constructed, and operated with the highest degree of skill and care commensurate with or proportionate to the possibility of injury to passengers in the use of such elevators” (Oberndorfer v. Pabst, 100 Wis. 505" court="Wis." date_filed="1898-09-20" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/oberndorfer-v-pabst-8186016?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8186016">100 Wis. 505, 76 N. W. 338), and this is in accord with the law universally laid down by the courts. Rut as it is not claimed that the evidence was insufficient to take the question of defendants’ negligence to the jury, it is unnecessary to spend time upon it. The question presented is whether, the court was right in holding that the evidence showed the plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence as matter of law. The facts as shown by his own evidence were that he was very familiar with the elevator, and knew that it was in a very dark place and was not lighted in the daytime; that he approached it, having in mind the question whether the car was there or not; that before stepping in he looked at the open hole, and saw no car, because it was dark; that the door was only partly open — about half open — and that he pushed it open with his shoulders and stepped in; that only a few moments before he had stepped into the car through the door, which was then fully ojpen. Upon these facts, is there a question for the jury? There is no doubt that, when a door to an elevator shaft is thrown open by the attendant, that very act constitutes an invitation to enter. Tousey v. Roberts, 114 N.Y. 312" court="NY" date_filed="1889-05-03" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/tousey-v--roberts-3609961?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="3609961">114 N. Y. 312, 21 N. E. 399; Oberndorfer v. Pabst,
By the Gourt. — Judgment affirmed.