Civil action by Lyman C. St. Louis against Fisher & Company, Inc., a Michigan corpo *57 rаtion, for personal injuries sustained in a fall. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant appeаls.
Plaintiff, a salesman employed by a company with offices on the 22d floor of the Fisher Building, Detroit, lеased parking space for his automobile on the 5th floor of the adjoining Fisher Building garage. On January 20,1960, he used an 11th floor unmarked pedestrian passageway to walk to the garage elevators. After taking several steps (10 to 12 feet), he slipped and fell on grease on the garage floor, sustaining injuries. He claims he did not see any grease until after his fall, at which time he noticed some greаse on his shoe and clothing which matched the grease on the floor.
Prior to his entry into the garagе, a car had been driven from the grease rack on a lower level to the 11th floor and was parked on the pedestrian passageway for a short period of time. The attendant on thе 11th floor testified that he saw plaintiff fall but did not see the grease until after the fall.
Plaintiff claims that defendant breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Defendant deniеs any negligence and claims that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence.
As invitor, defendant owed a duty to its customers and patrons, including plaintiff, to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe conditiоn and to exercise due care to prevent the existence of a situation which defendant knew or should have known might result in injury.
Torma
v.
Montgomery Ward & Co.
(1953),
*58 “One is under no obligation to keep Ms premises in safe condition for the visits of trеspassers. On the other hand, when he expressly or by implication invites others to- come upon his рremises, whether for business or for any other purpose, it is his duty to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them intо danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit.”
Appellant claims that the court erred in its instructions to the jury. However, the court’s instructions to the jury when considered as a whole fairly and fully presented the law applicable to the issues and were sufficient.
Martiniano
v.
Booth
(1960),
Appellant further argues that the court committed рrejudicial error in his verbal exchanges with defense counsel. Although these exchanges betweеn defense counsel and the judge were somewhat extended and irrelevant to the question befоre the court and may have caused defense counsel some irritation and annoyance, the test to be applied is whether or not what occurred prevented appellant frоm having a fair and impartial trial.
Patrick
v.
Carrier-Stevens Co.
(1959),
Appellant further claims that the lower court erred in refusing to grant its motion for directed verdict both as to its negligence and plaintiff’s contributory nеgligence.
*59 Did the record raise a question of fact as to whether or not defendant exercised proper precautions to enable its customers to enter the garage from a dоorway and use a pedestrian passageway to the elevators with reasonable assurance of safety!
The question of negligence is considered one of law for the court only where the facts are such that all reasonable men must draw from them the same conclusions.
Barnebee
v.
Spence Bros.
(1962),
Neither may it be said that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. He entered the same doorway to the garage and used the same pedestrian passageway to the elevators five times a week for a period of thrеe years. During that time he had never seen grease on the pedestrian passageway. Plaintiff had no reason to anticipate that the garage attendant would park a recently greased motor vehicle on the passageway. He had no reason to anticipate the presence of grease in the area. After the accident he did see grease on the floor. The color of the grease blended with the color of the floor. His explanation for failure to see the grease is not illogical. Under the circumstances suggested by his testimony, it does not appear that a reasonable, careful, and prudent person would have acted оtherwise. A reasonable person could have considered plaintiff free from contributory negligence. The question became one of fact for determination by the jury.
Ingram v. Henry
(1964),
Judgment affirmed. Costs to plaintiff-appellee.