*1 Appellant, Sirulnik. Jerdon, Argued April 1960. Before J., Bell, C. Jones, JJ. Jones, Cohen Musmanno, Eagen, William P. with him Thorn, Edward for Rocap, ap- pellants.
John F. Cramp, with him George J. MeConchie, appellees.
Opinion 1960: June Mr. Justice Coi-ien, entered judgment are appeals These *2 a action after pleas negligence common in court of de- a for the defendants and directed verdict court had circum- а trial. The motion for new plaintiffs’ nied be- summarized the court the accident are by of stances had a domestic wife-plaintiff “The as follows: low home for six in the defendаnts’ days when, employee and fell on some slipped of her she course duties, in- stairs foot the basement and was at the of water house. split defendants live in a levеl . . . The jured. one recrea- are on kitchen and laundry floor, in the basement. Plaintiff, returning room is tion at 11:30 the house about observed of a.m., another and went to fetch the floor of laundry on water a descended the flicked on stairs light, She mop. a slipped both feet on the put room, floor, recreation fell. she did not and on which it, sеe, water on some room is and lighted windows by “The and two lamps. lights standing overhead three not described windows as high of the overhead lights Two light. much giving be switched in the basement. cоuld lamps floor plain- switched on light ceiling other stairs.” of the the top tiff at must a a case make out
To plain- that the defendant owed the alia, inter prove, thаt As to the breached. duty which tiff duty parties to the owed wife-plaintiff, defendants these expressed the rule Sec- applicability agree “A master (2d), Agency: the Restatеment tion 492 provide care used either to to a that duty subject is his are safe for reasonably the nature considering subservants, servants them of risks unsafe or to warn the employment, realize discover they may he should ditions by the care.” Section exercise of due Comment b of provides applies master’s to servants in industrial establishments but аlso domestic servants. theory were provide
negligent light failing sufficient premises wife-plaintiff performed in which the du- ties. wife-plaintiff’s
Considering, the nature of the then, employment as a resident what evidence domestic, the lack adduced to of care fur- show defendants in nishing reasonably evi- conditions? What prove dence offered arrangement
equipment or the thereof “rea- was not *3 purposes? sonably safe” for As we the review there none. Presented in the manner most record, plaintiffs, to the evidence favorable discloses thаt the light the able to switch top the of the stairs was located in the center persons but room to the rear the recreation and left of descending stairway, any the so that direct illumina- light by by that furnished tion blocked the wife- by (as any person) it be would as she de- light might the To some extent stairs. scended this by the been blocked riser in the have stairs. also Thus, wife-plaintiff descending or the the either riser or both thereby at the foot of the a shadow stairs created upon wife-plaintiff slipped. cealing water that way rulеd this court evidence lower in no any established defendants, accordingly that directed verdict be entered agree favor. We with the lower defendants’ in court. prоof by plaintiffs advanced line of shows might have the accident occurred—it not how does challenge degree by way any of care exercised having their reсreation room in lit it manner nor was, does it result- indicate that the ing illumination made the recreation room one reasonably which it safe for a domestic plaintiffs рresented testimony work. no an building light- inspector, builder or architect, ing Avassubnormal or that it was illu- insufficient to minate as it nor room was constructed, any equipment being was there evidence of the temporarily permanently or out of order. In short, any might did not offer evidence which show that either the or floor where the water was could nоt be but that seen, the water provide Necessarily, duty seen. reasonably working facilities and conditions for domestic servants providing great degree does not include so possible every foreign capable being item is seen. light is fulfilled if there sufficient make reasonably premises it safe for the domestic to use the purpose nаmely, for the to Avalkthe intended, stairs floors. As the court opinion, lower states in “The its plaintiff’s prove default in case is that she did not ‘the status the floor at the foot of the stairs could not reasonably plaintiff,’ be detected but observant only that [the Avater] was not detected. If failure proof negli- detect the hazard Avereto be сonsidered transgress gence, this Avould the rule mere negligence.” of an accident is not evidence of *4 assuming arrangement lighting Even Avorking stituted an unsafe defendants conditiоn, Avouldnot be held circum- liable in these stances. Under the Restatement the defendants’ rule, providing reasonably is either use care in wife-plaintiff or to ex- warn the isting unsafe Avill conditions that the realize defendants not be discovered the exercise of due care. There no reason for six Avas believe that after
427 days residing using the in defendants’ home and daily numerous times in the course become work, have herself lighting aware of the conditions of the n room. upon plaintiffs rely cases their asser-
tion that there
de-
here for which the
distinguishable. They
fendants are liable are all
dangerous
or
involve situations in which
defect
some
separate
change
obstruction1 оr a
in the levels where
persons
poorly lighted,
had Avalk2was
or situations
inadequacy
there
Avhich
was some evidence of the
lighting
other than the
of the accident.3
steps
Here there was no evidence that
floors
or
could not be
that the defendants
of or were
seen;
knew
water;
responsible
presence
of the
plain-
any Avay
was in
or that the
defective,
acquainted
fully
tiff had
aware of
with
room.
conditions in the recreation
udgment affirmed.,
J
1
(1956);
Duffy
Peterson,
533,
v.
Pa.
v.
43,
382
Dissenting Opinion by Mr. Justice Musmanno: injured plaintiff, Mary was she when Jerdon, pool fell in a of water the defendants’ basement lighted the a manner which was in such to obscure as liquid. presence offending Judge of di- the The Trial has rected a verdict for the defendant Court Opinion judgment. says: Majority the affirmed “There was no reason for believe using days residing after six defendants’ home of daily her numerous times in thе course of wife-plaintiff would not become have herself work, lighting the recreation aware of conditions of room.” plaintiff part only
But this states the case. Thе inadequate because said pointed day prevailing She she fell. descending only to one switch out available it illumination that a feeble stairs threw on such up There were lighted below. of the room they lights could but in the basement electric additional when, until one reached the floor, on not be turned help someone who had bе too late to it would course length it already floor. so, his Even measured inadequate lighting caused itself not the poor injuries. illumination plaintiff’s It was plaintiff presencе the pool plus whose water, defend- domestic ignorant. She had been happened in days, nothing but employ six ants’ unexpected any mo- days her that at to warn six thosе fluid, with a cover floor would the basement ment transparency, its mask of its because which, presence. negligent cir- inadequate one they Together the water. other was
cumstance. broke vise which crushed formed a hip. *6 Casey Singer,
In v. 372 Pa. 284, Court said: “A defective condition is it harmless in self hut combined with a fortuitous which, foreseeable, injury person, causes to a third constitutes contingent negligencе.” Campbell Superior
In Pittsburgh, 155 Pa. Ct. Superior wisely justly: Court said “We may although therefore take it to be fore- the law seeability injury controlling a determin- is factor in ing proximate injury рlaintiff, cause to a it is precise probability injury restricted to the injury injury manner occurred. is ifAnd necessarily a defendant relieved foreseeable, liability contributing because of other causes if proximate negligence in- defendant’s is a cause jury. long may It has law proximate injury a cause of an of which it is not sole cause.” jury
I reverse and send the case back for question involved. factual determination Appellant, v. Inc., Sales Co., Electric Eastern Bank and Tradesmens Provident Company. Trust