Aрpellee Theofanidis slipped on a step leading to appellant hospital’s emеrgency room and ruptured his right achilles’ tendon. Appellee, and his wife for loss of consortium, brought this action for damages against the hospital alleging that a portion of the step on which he sliрped was broken or worn and that the hospital was negligent in failing to exercise care in keеping its premises and approaches safe. At trial appellant’s motion for directed verdict was denied, the jury returned a verdict of nothing for the wife and $13,000 for appellee, appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or in the alternative a new trial was denied, and the hospital appeals. Held:
1. Appellant alleges that the trial court erred in denying its motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict or new trial because the alleged defect in the step was slight and appellant had no duty to maintain steps which were free from minor irregularities.
“[0]n appeаl the evidence is to be construed to sustain rather than to destroy, the verdict, for every presumption and inference is in its favor. [Cit.]”
Jordan v. Ellis,
Appellee testified that he had taken his wife to the emergency room at night, had gone outside to park his car, that when he was returning to the emergency room his foot slipped on the third step of a concrete stairs leading up to the emergency room from the outside, and that a piece of the third step was missing. He identified a series of photogrаphs showing a broken place on the edge of the third step. The director of building services for the hospital testified that he was familiar with the alleged defect in the step and that it had been therе for about eight years. He described it as a piece of the concrete having fallen аway, four and a half inches wide, a chip out of the edge of the1 step. “[0]n the level surface оf the step it goes back about one inch. However, a half inch from the top of the step it gоes — feathers away to where there’s only a half inch indentation in the steps, so its very — *812 almost like a rounding off of the edge of the step.”
Appellant’s reliance on
City of Brunswick v. Glogauer,
Associated Dist. v. Canup,
We find no error in thе trial court’s denial of the motion on this ground as the evidence does not, as a matter of law, show that the defect in the step was so slight that an injury was not forseeable. “It is a question for a jury whether the owner of premises has exercised proper care and diligence in keeping the premises safe for those invited thereon, especially when the defective condition is onе of such character that reasonable and prudent men may reasonably differ as to whethеr an injury could or should have been reasonably anticipated from its existence or not. [Cits.]”
Griffith v. Morgan,
2. Apрellant also claims error in the denial of his motions for directed verdict, and judgment notwithstanding the verdiсt or new trial, because appellee did not establish that the alleged defect in the steр was the proximate cause of his injury.
Appellee testified that he was going up the steps with his hand оn the handrail on the right. It was dark and he was unaware of any defect in the steps. His foot slipped on the third step and he fell. He sat on the steps and felt around and found that a piece of the third stеp was missing. He said he slipped because the step was broken although the only thing he felt before he fell was his foot-slipping on the step. Photographs showed the defect and the steps were also viewed by the jury. Appellant’s director of building services assumed that the location of the defect was where a foot would contact the step if one were going up the right side of the steps with a hand on the handrail.
We find that the trial court also did not err in denying the motions on this ground as the evidence does not plainly, palpably and
*813
indisputably show a lack of proximate cause. Absent such evidence, the issue of proximate cause, as well as that of negligence, is for the jury.
Collins v. McGlamory,
Judgment affirmed¡