*1 dеpart jury table. To box and at the counsel expressions duty through questions, the line clear orderly administration contravenes conduct, par- tendency justice. one of It has a to take from guaran- impartial right to a fair and trial, ties jurisprudence. Judges system should teed under our they examination of witnesses; refrain from extended opinion during an indicate should trial, not, credibility, or a doubt as to the witnesses’ the merits, leaning anything to one side to indicate do jury explaining all these without other, matters are for them.” “ judge counsel between ‘Conversation judge necessary, should be studi- often court is apt are to obscure controversies which ous avoid dispute litigants and lead to its between merits of the addressing litigants, unjust disposition. counsel, manner a controversial he should avoid or witnesses, ” . . .’ or tone reflecting my' judgment, It considered without ability Judge Trial and the admitted his that he allowed own intentions, of his rectitude testimony through private his show reaction deprived plaintiff he and to that extent robes adjudication impartial to which he was fair and entitled. accordingly trial. order a new
I would Appellant. Dollar Stores, McAdoo v. Autenreith’s *2 Arguеd October 1954. Before C. J., Steen, Musmanno and Stearns, JJ. Jones, Chidsey, Arnold, V. C. for Short, appellant. M.
Morris him Berger, with Samuel for Krimsly, appellee.
Opinion 1954: Me. November Justice Jones, for damages for recovered verdict was struck suffered when she personal injuries the entrance of a door at back-swing Pittsburgh. Street defendant’s Forbes store for a n.o.v. judgment court denied motions for the judge the term of trial an opinion, new without after shortly trial expired at the presided having who from the appeals The defendant of the order. entry error assigns on the verdict entered judgment for judg- refusal the motion only the lower court’s appellant motion, ment support n.o.v. resulted injuries (1) plaintiff’s argues (2) of a third person, the intervening negligence *3 negli- to make out case of causative failed the plain- and (3) of the defendant gence a matter contributory as tiff was guilty in- the reasonable the evidence and Viewing of law. favor- light in the most deducible therefrom ferences the ma- we are to required do, verdict, able be as follows. may terial facts summarized as did the the defendant’s entering Patrons store, into a vesti- display from the sidewalk step plaintiff, means the store proper whiсh connects with bule double doors. doorway closed off the January day, afternoon of a plaintiff, the early the display vestibule, entered a woman of forty-five, make a She purchase. into the store to go intending on occasions and was previous in the store had been at the entrance swung that the aware her With her under left handbag in both directions. “In” door her righthand she approached arm, ,with her hand. While right and pushed open side clad for out- man, observed a she position the “Out” door on the toward walking who was doors, side. When she had clearеd lefthand plaintiff’s doorway right, on her her she started to vralk to left, proceeding by putting right her left her foot forward; slightly foot was then At in back of that moment her. presumably being the door on her released left, appeared leaving the man who had to be store, swung right back into the and store struck her on the thigh. propelled foot The force of the her blow against to the floor of the store a counter about seven injuries doorway, causing feet from the for which brought she suit. question lightweight
The doors are constructed of glass. (to right wood and The door on the enter- one ing store) eight feet two and one-half inches wide the other two feet nine door, inches. There warning signs, railing no dividers barriers separating hung Each doors. door was on three (Bommer type) hinges permit double action which freely swing door its either direction within fixed type hinge equipped arc. Bommer with two spring barrels one of is on either side adjusted springs equalize door. The barrel are their stays tension so door on the transverse center doorway position. line of when its normal closed pushed open When the door is the motion winds the thereby spring, increаsing one tension its con- and, opposite comitantly, spring is unwound which re- *4 open duces its tension. As the door is released from an position, tightened spring the tension of the causes the swing ordinarily point door back does ato beyond position, line the of its normal closed thus opposite creating spring in tension the in which, turn, swing way. During causes the door to back the other diminishing progress the of the oscillation, the tension springs equalized the in two becomes and the door position at to rest its closed comes where it remains again. pushed open (cid:127)until the рroxi- is that theory liability
The of plaintiff’s negli- her the defendant’s injury mate cause of was hinges on spring in gence maintaining doors, the that or devices so stopping without back with swing could being open, after pushed a person and throw force strike sufficient that to show testimony offered no floor. plaintiff inadequate, improper, the hinges springs doors, whereby any way of defective in adjustment out of proof failure rendered unsafe. This their use was more significant the is the of the called expert of of testimony light that contradiction who stated without defendant used hinge is the stаndard type Bommer hinge mov- stores and five and ten cent some super markets, in- doors are lightweight where ing picture theatres in the entrance such as stalled wooden jambs that further testified defendant’s store. He Pittsburgh used and about hinge Bommer was type like the cent of stores ninety per defendant’s, in- he used that extensively still being are in industrial every week them stalling practically plants. the defendant’s discussion
We over without pass injuries resulted plaintiff’s contentions her or from of a third intervening person and con important contributory negligence. own from which proof thеre was no is that trolling thing could be inferred causative negligence the defendant’s which, of the accident itself the happening save A liability. to establish insufficient is legally course, an safety not an insurer is land possessor rea merely required of conduct the standard invitee; v. Atlantic Great Sheridan care: sonable Pacific 280. Pa. 44 A. 11, 13, Indeed, Company, Tea 2d if defendant’s concedes *5 392
doors were reasonably
ordinary
safe when used with
care and in
the manner followed
persons generally,
the defendant
fully discharged its
legal duty
:
premises
cf.
Philadelphia
v.
Graeff
&
R.
Reading
161 Pa.
While use of customary machinery or methods, ap pliances is evidence of an exercise of care, reasonable such usagе does not furnish conclusive test on the question v. negligence: Donnelly Fred Whittaker 364 Pa. 72 A. 2d Company, 61. Hudson v. 387, 390, 348 Pa. 34 Grace, A. 2d our 175, present 181-182, 498, Chief Justice out pertinently pointed “In the piquant of Mr. language Justice Holmes: What is usually done be may evidence what be ought but what done, to be done is ought fixed aby standard of reasonable whether.it prudence, usually complied with or.mot’: & Texas Pacific Co. Ry. v. 189 U. S. Behymer, 468, 470. as was said Or, in Indermaurv. Dames, (1866) L.R. 288, Eng. Cas. 64, 78: 'No 1 C.P. 274, Rul. what; could .'establish that' usage' was "in :fac.t .unneces im sarily.'dangerous was law reasonably- safe,;ns against towards', wag'a; persons.' whom .there duty'.to; .be care ” ; Maize v. ful.’ See, also, Atlantic Refining Company, 41.A. 352. 2d 850. Mr the-instant .case :there Pa. (cid:127) (cid:127) not. .of: a .scintilla evidence that is. defendant’s deviated any doors' ¡swinging way .ordinary frdm or, customary-, .usage; that libere- was .:anything; .faulty, *6 construction in the design, defective dangerous there- nothing, There the doors. was equipment of adjudged be defendant could fore, which any of established on the basis of guilty negligence standard of care. in the instant situation evidentiary deficient v. in Miller that
case similar to disclosed is strikingly A. 73. 97 251 Pa. Republic 593, Chemical Company, cause the proximate that alleged There, a to provide failure of his employer’s his was injury unloading a for platform crane instead of skids and cars. from railroad of machinery heavy pieces this branch of two witnesses on plaintiff produced it as The one gave engineers. mechanical case, both of unloading his method was opinion that the crane How- like opinion. the other a expressed safer and platform testified that skid neither ever, not the defendant was of utilized method unloading In it not in common use. or that was reasonably safe Mr. for the Justice plaintiff, reversing judgment for said (p. 598),— this speaking court, Stewart, was suffi- admitted that the evidence it “Even were that crane method the conclusion cient to warrant of a disre- showing it short comes far safer, was not of the defendant in duty of any gard only negligence it. prove A can adopting used appliance that by showing such as this case Even it he made reasonably though safe. was not such fact ordinary would use, that it was not appear ‘The of negligence. party an inference not warrant disproves showing negligence charged use in the those in general he employed the tools does not follow. The party the converse business, it by not showing does show negligence charging use. If it be common should machinery and best machine if not use newest so held, 394 could be adduced as
yet generally adopted, evidence Pitt. v. Ft. negligence’: Cunningham Bridge Works, 197 Pa. The duty possessor 625.” of a of land to his invitee no greater than that of an employer his employee in respect appliances equipment he provides employees. with which his v. White Board Education New City York, App. N.Y.S. was a Div. suit for to a damages injury five-year girl by old having finger caught door in a class- room at the alleged was “based school, *7 solely on the of a absence door check on the door.” evidence at trial disclosed that door in the involved the accident was a standard classroom door the Queens schools of Borough and that the speci- standard fications for the construction public through- schools out York New did not door City require checks on classroom jury doors. The gave plain- verdicts for the In tiffs. the entered on the reversing judgments ver- the court . . dicts, said the door that, here, its —“. the condition on the аccident day was not happened, inherently obviously dangerous because it lacked stop. a Of the accident course, probably could not happened have had there been a stop, the mere of the accident does happening not indicate that been anticipated. should have For untold generations school children been have without passing accident through doors not equipped stops.” with
In
v.
Smith
Johnson,
doors but, rather, *8 For in v. Bank repair. example, Young in good checks Trust and America National Savings Association, 214 P. 2d where an eighteen- 2d App. 106, 95 Cal. 725, injured child was knocked down and a month old by had a door door which defective check, swinging bronze doors that each large hinged “there were two so or be either outward inward . . . pushed could [and] with devices known as door double-acting equipped if in would proper working checks cause which, order, first stop they the doors to when reached the center or them from prevent closed out- position swinging after had been they and inward released ward had A passed through doorway.” who person pa- 396 having just door con
tron left the released the hank, swing consequence, tinued to back and forth and, injured plaintiff toddling struck and the child who was nearby. checking evidence action showed operating on the door had not been months several prior and that some three or four accident weeks manager’s grandson similarly the bank had been own injured by negligence the same door. The bank’s was knowingly maintaining a defective door with check, proper out the action of the dоor reason of which, weight capable persons injuring size its swung with whom it into contact. The of Todd cases Kresge Company, v. S. S. 384 Ill. 2d 524, N.E. 206, and Martin v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., S.W. 1083 (Mo. App.), equally inapposite. are Dolan v. Growers 129 Conn. Outlet, 26 A. 2d Inc., whose brief per opinion contrary curiam to cites, weight authority. what we to be believe the clear plaintiff argues illogical impose that it is to liability provides on one who a door albeit de- check, provides stop relieve fective, and another who no at fallacy reasoning all. The obvious this lies all fact not which are dоors, equipped checking retarding or are dan- devices, gerous may, if used with reasonable care. There be because course, which, of their size, weight dangerous or can be to location, those who use automatically them unless checked retarded. But, that was not shown be situation in the instant any failed offer And, case. evidence lightweight that the doors, maintained the de- dangerous instrumentality fendant, unless equipped permit with a check or device. To finding in such circumstances would requiring stops tantamount mechanical be re- *9 public. on all doоrs used tarders entered and is here is reversed The judgment the defendant. Opinion
Dissenting Musmanno: Mr. Justice I cannot help disrespect any Without intending devices the mechanical description feeling Opinion, in the Majority in this case, given involved invention complicated of a description like the sounds “The Bommer to wit: Goldberg cartoon, in a Rube one barrels spring with two equipped is type hinge springs the door. barrel either side of is on the door their tension so to adjusted equalize are doorway line of the when center on the transverse stays is pushed When the door position. normal closed in its increas- thereby winds' the one spring, the motion open spring concomitantly, opposite and, ing tension; its. the door is tension. As reduces its is unwound which tension from an open position, released back which swing the door causes spring tightened line of nor- its beyond to a point does ordinarily it in the op- a tension creating thus mal closed position, door to causes the swing turn, which, spring posite the diminishing progress way. During the other back be- springs the two the tension oscillation, to rest at its comes and the door equalized comes pushed open remains until where position closed again.” oscil- logic its Majority Opinion progresses,
As the until line of precedent transverse center from the lates the concomitant facts overcome tension the de- finally technicality barrel of spring force the plain- rest a closed position cision comes courthouse and the right doors of the tiff outside her. beside lying prostrate trial a jury Jane McAdoo 31, 1950, January On at Dollar Store into the Autenreith’s walked *10 398 Pittsburgh purpose pur-
Forbes Street in for the chasing commodities on in that sale establishment. The up store’s entrancе is made of double doors hung hinges portal fastened to either of the side Folding right crossing frame. back the door and Mrs. MeAdoo threshold, to the left moved toward a displaying counter wares of interest to her. Another way proceeded through customer on his out of the store (the the other half of the one to her left). Yielding push, to his door went to the limit swung passed of its outward arc and then dead back, striking center and continued on into the store plaintiff path. who in was now its direct force The backswing hitting plaintiff of the was such that, right leg, catapulted on the her forward seven feet against ripping fingernail, throwing off a counter, inflicting injuries her to the floor and other not nec- essary to describe here. jury, hearing after returned a verdict case,
for the in the amount of The de- $4,766.00. appealed entering judg- fendant store and this Court is notwithstanding ment I verdict. do not believe justice jury law nullification of this justified. may recently January, be As verdict this Court said the case of Jerominski v. Fowler, public “A Pa. 295: store owner who invites although premises, on do business his not an insurer safety duty has the invitee, affirmative maintaining premises reasonably in a his safe con- contemplated dition for the use thereof and for the purpose for which the invitation was or extended, give warning any failure to maintain them that condition.” in the
Were the doors defendant’s store maintained reasonably question condition? That was a safe jury to In the same Jerominski case for the decide. jury to determine whether we said: “It required met care the circumstances was under defendant.” Majority Opinion decision much of its bases proposition tes- did not offer that the
timony doors with the defendant store’s show that adjustment, inadequate, im- their out of devices “were proper burden was no such defective.” There *11 help person goes plaintiff. A into a store to the who right expect that the the has enrich store’s owner entering not the door will vio- establishment, the after fury. avenging lently an return him down like to strike plaintiff she was case that the this showed Once contributory negligence and that she was free from argued injured the if store in manner which not the accident would had exercised due care owner upon ordinarily the defend- there fell occurred, have duty meet re- proprietor he did his to show that ant sponsibility under the circumstances. care of due successfully that burden was carried Whether he jury the Court. to decide—not the Superior the Pa. Ct. 621, Schreiber,
In House v. seeped plaintiffs damage property when water suffered place. The through ceiling floor their business of the manufacturing occupied by The concern. above was affirmatively plaintiffs that the defend- show not did negligence, guilty returned the verdict of but ant was Superior plaintiffs Court, affirmed for the clearly negligence of “inference said that which established, were Which the circumstances arises required рlaintiffs show defendant’s not and con- The defendant evidence.” direct damages plaintiffs’ could case that tended building, pipes in the from other water resulted have emphasized: Superior “The does law Court biit the every possible other cause of require elimination plaintiffs only rely, such, than the cause on which evidence, any, fairly [citing if arise from cases] necessary everything It is not for a to exclude may ingenuity suggest.” of counsel Opinion Majority says: failure of here “This proof signifi- of more is the light testimony expert cant called by the defendant who stated withоut contradiction that type hinge hinge the Bommer is the standard used super in some stores five and ten cent markets, moving picture lightweight theatres doors are where jambs installed on wooden as in such the entrance to Majority goes the defendant’s store.” The on to then say type hinge that the Bommer “in is used Pittsburgh ninety percent about stores like percent? the defendant’s.” How about other ten possibility It is within the realm of that the other ten percent hinge refuse to use the Bommer it because capable doing what did in this case. hinge expert for the defendant testified that *12 performance hinge
the of the Bommer is affected part testimony and In season weather. one his this expert hung type hinge said that a door on this go past degrees more “wouldn’t than 30 of its 90 de gree travel.” Later he said that without a broken impossible spring go it would be for the door “to degrees. awfully more than It would have to be an day.”* patron cold Does this mean that a before en tering a store must consult the Zodiac and a thermome beyond ter to ascertain whether a will door continue pursue limit of its the normal backward arc to the patron him strike down? there Furthermore, is proof spring possibility no that not the was broken, a expert, acknowledged could which- convert the door portal battering from an innocuous into ram. The * throughout, mine. Italics
expert April testified that he first saw the on hinge 1951. 1950. January The accident happened between the date the sixteen months which passed of the inspection hinge accident and date been times. repaired could have many for that “The says decision, Majority question is entrance doors therefore, provided whether intended defendant safe for their reasonably wеre adds: purpose when and then ordinary used with care,” “The question is as the whether not, plaintiff assumes, the proximate injury cause of the plaintiff’s defendant’s failure to the doors with checks equip swing devices that the backward stop would of the door normal position instanter on the line of its But is the to show wheth- when closed.” how safety er the doors safe? Reasonable reasonably were in a that cannot be decided is an abstract proposition objective application There must be some vacuum. of the submitted objectivities
the doctrine and one safe not reasonably that the doors were retard- checks or with they equipped because at swing the backward stop would ing devices which if It must be admitted dead center. the accident the threshold rest parallel
came to a ad- expert The defendant’s not have happened. could did beyond door travel offending mitted into the did penetrate swing sill on the return the defend- it negligence Was building. in that manner? the door swing store to allow ant and that jury decide, question That was the from the thus taken jury, this Court has question is the a factual to have right the plаintiff depriving *13 the tribunal guaranteed upon passéd question of the land. the law her “In the instant case says: Majority Opinion defendant’s of evidence
there is not a scintilla
any way
ordinary
doors
in
deviated
from
customary usage. . . .” But that is not the test of rea-
question
sonable care. The
is not whether the de-
they
fendant’s doors were like other
but whether
doors,
January
were safe on
1950.
Other stores could
equipped
have had similar defective doors
with defec-
hinges
grace
injured
tive
of God have not
other customers—but that fact would not make the
defendant’s doors safe. And then how is it to be known
that the
in
other stores have not also knocked
down customers? There is no
in
evidence
the case from
Majority
any
which the
can draw
such conclusion even
if it could surmount the barrier of res inter alios aeta.
Majority Opinion says
that “the deficient evi-
dentiary
strikingly
situation
the instant case is
simi-
Republic
lar to that disclosed in Miller v.
Chemical
Company,
compare
403 rejects argument ing. Majority as fallacious this saying are not “not doors, that all retarding equipped checking are dan- devices, with or plain- gerous But the if reasonable care.” used with hung says culpable tiff that the door was so here hinged that it not as a safe door. so did function attempt analyze
I not all out-of-State will They Majority. quoted cases cited and may persuasive Majority they are be not Pennsylvania. controlling am I at all con- Nor reasoning employed in is that the those cases vinced always logical represents fairness and or that even justice in the York case under For New instance, law. City Education New of White v. Board York, of of of five-year injured App. old child was 249 Div. (without checking swinging door when a devices) finger. Court there ad- on her closed probably hap- “the accident could not have mitted that spite stop.” startling pened that had been a there casually the Court then went on admission so stated, say: generations, school “'For untold children have passing through doors not without accident been stops.” equipped did the Court How know that pass- generations children had been for untold school through ing accident unchecked doors? Where without rightly appellate wrongly, that no an court decides, permitted given recovery in set of circum- will be lawyers stop bringing most actions based on stances, though they may that character even a situation adopted agree appellate that the standard not simply it does not is correct. follow Thus, court appear type accident does not a certain because appellate litigation courts that before kind of actually happening. only mishap For is not instance, person injured recently that Avherea we decided flying from a railroad train does missile he need to show the railroad. forty years Bradley (because Yet for v. L. the law S. Rwy. 315), & M. S. an un Pa. held that such Co., require company toward event did not railroad exculpate presumed negligence. finally itself from We *15 repudiated Bradley Concurring Opin cаse. a Bradley many lay ion I that the said case “for decades justice across the track of remedial like a and steel concrete barrier. No can one estimate number of lawsuits were either dismissed or never be even gun apparently because insurmountable obstacle by up built that decision.”* Has time not come legal wrong a to disavow doctrine that sees no in a permits crushing mangling situation which five-year-old fingers of school tots? Majority finally plaintiff’s dismisses the case permit negli- finding
with the assertion that “To a gence in such circumstances would bе tantamount requiring stops swing- mechanical or on all retarders ing public.” suggests used This assertion that the decision is based not on the facts this case upon fear a as to what the result of this decision may duty be in other It cases. is our to decide one responsibility case at a time. We have no as to what done on “all should be doors used injured public.” somebody If door stopping without a we device will con- case when it object sider that comes before us, but I founding present decision on facts, cir- condition, hypothetically cumstances events scheduled to oc- may may future which cur not ever arrive. * Reading Co., Mack v. 377 Pa. 142.