Stais v. Sears-Roebuck & Co.
106 A.2d 216
Pa.
1954
Check Treatment

*1 claratory Judgments piece legis- an excellent Act, kept proper lation when within shall not be bounds, properly applicable,’ used in cases which and this is one of them.” frankly majority

In the instant ease the admit rights parties, between these as well as recovery, any, amount of if must be determined in supplementary proceedings. future or declaratory For these reasons I would hold that judgment proceedings should be dismissed. Company, Appellant.

Stais Sears-Roebuck and Argued May 1954. Before C. J., Steen, and Ar- Stearns, Jones, Musmanno Bell, Chidsey, JJ. nold, *2 Brewster

Robert B. him F. Wickersham,, with Wolf, Wolf, S. Metzger Lewis é Wickersham Kunkel, S for appellant. Schorr Block, Solis-Cohen, Hur- Benjamin F. him Irwin Macey with Klein, & for appellees. witz, Myers Benjamin, Klein, Opinion Per 1954: Curiam, June 28, from are by These here appeals, special allowance, order Superior an of the Court affirming respective for dam- plaintiffs for the husband and wife judgments injuries each as a of personal occasioned result ages in a the wife down a of stairs by flight suffered fall in defendant company maintained the negligently of its the one stores. more is than involved Nothing of the the liti- parties interests immediate to private the Supe- the relevant rule law, gation; in rior Court its unanimous correctly applied opinion Ct. is extremely simple Pa. (see Superior 498), one open not, and not to The case is question. therefore, or to uniform- necessary secure general importance v. Trans- Taylor Philadelphia Rapid of decision: ity see Pa. 631; 91 A. also Kraemer 189, 196, Company, Trust & Deposit Co., Pa. 416, Guarantee Safe the decision Accordingly, Superior 33 A. 1047. ended matter. appropriately affirmed. Order

Dissenting Opinion Mb. Justice Bell: in No facts are stated majority opinion prove there is negligence, notice, liability any kind; an merely assertion fell down wife-plaintiff flight stairs maintained” defendant. “negligently Whenever facts it majority opinion fails state the I is, because a recital believe, would show weakness of their untenability position. instant failed to case prove any negligence whatever; failed to prove any notice, constructive, metal any defective to the stripping prior accident, even if it could be assumed that her heel did not pull loose. stripping

Considering light most favor- testimony *3 able to the these the facts. Plaintiff on plaintiff, are 1947 fell September down a of 7, flight leading stairs from the first floor to the basement a store of Sears- & Eoebuck Company Harrisburg, and suffered per- injuries. sonal The steps were well were lighted, with- out were covered with a floor shadow, composite cover- and nosing each and the ing, step edge a landing were covered metal stripping inches 1% fastened which was down wide, with screws. Plaintiff testified that she when looked down at the metal strip it flat and nosing appeared safe, flush-down. When she on it stepped caught she her heel fell down the Her heel steps. pulled was from her shoe. While lying at foot of steps that the metal observed strip was inches and sticking up y2 she could see emp- 1% That was ty holes. evidence only screw negligence or notice It proved by plaintiff. is obvious that plain- tiff’s heel could have wrenched the stripping loose, it equally obvious that could have become loose from one some other cause ten or minute, any other minutes, conjectural time to the prior accident.

292

The inspected defendant that steps morning found the metal flat and nosings safe. There were was no on evidence whatever behalf plaintiff’s showing condition of the before or after no nosing her evi- fall; that dence it or slippery was worn or dilapidated had become loose min- decayed, nosing five time any utes other before the and no evi- accident; dence that defective de- its assuming was condition — have been observed a reasonable in- fective —could spection. recovery

Under facts it is a impossible these allow a myriad subject unless decisions of this on or abandoned and negligence ignored, are overruled the doctrine of res be substituted. ipsa loquitur prove an accident not mere does happening A any liability. or create store owner negligence he has an liable for defects insurer; only he is or constructive which could have notice, i.e., v. Parker inspection: a reasonable been discovered 2d 376 Pa. 101 A. Sheridan 377; McCrory Stores, 122, 77 A. 2d See also v. & 366 Pa. 362. 485, Horn Hardart, A. Miller P. 371 Pa. 2d 887; Lanni v. R. 106, R., Allentown Lentz v. 81 A. 2d 910; 368 Pa. Hickey, 317, Pa. A. 541. Bobbin Works, af we supra, v. McCrory Stores, Pa., In Parker in a little slipped nonsuit where firmed *4 (pool) aof store which wet aisle of water the pool minutes before the accident. five had noticed been first and that is not an insurer; storekeeper held that a We only not unreason a standard “is hold him to such to ab but is so authority, any unsupported and able owner every large store bankrupt it that would surd the only the effect of that not Yet Pennsylvania.” in they test is the which opinion, but majority present unintentionally adopt. tentionally or supra, In Lanni v. P. a R. we entered R., Pa., judgment plaintiff proved slipped on she n.o.v. where large grease spot a was with dirt which covered dust any danger. so that did not notice There no was plaintiff’s long spot grease on behalf the evidence how prior had the been there to but the fact that accident, it covered dust and dirt that was with would indicate length it had there a of been considerable time. Never held we that the evidence to theless, was sufficient jury reasonably legitimately enable the to and infer (constructive) We also held that notice. the defendant duty plaintiff, only owed to a visitor, business the of reasonable care in the correct circumstances, to viz., any unsafe condition discoverable the was diligence, citing exercise care and reasonable with approval of the numer Restatement and Torts, Law of our ous cases Court. Hickey, supra,

In Miller v. denied re we Pa., covery ato the handrail on when the fire es cape descending he which was broke and fell. It was very after rail shown the accident was corrod dangerous ed and that defective condition must long very for time, have existed but there no evi was any that a dence of notice evidence reasonable inspection could disclosed have condition. defective majority opinion approves R.

The Lanni v. P. R., supra, Superior on which was relied Pa., misapplied but has to law the facts Court, this majority, paraphrase Shakespeare’s case. Mac- keep promise the word of ear it beth, our but break hope understanding. to our and majority away principles to do If with wish ignore meaningless myriad negligence make substitute therefor doc- decisions this ipsa loquitur, res be trine of far better to would say choosing frankly openly so instead *5 29á

“erosion” method I shall continue, though ap- to oppose. parently unsuccessfully, de- I here enter for the judgment would reverse non fendant obstante veredicto. Pittsburgh Company,

Graybar Electric Inc. v. Appellant. District, School J.,O. March 1954. Before Argued Steen, JJ. Steaene, Jones, Musmanno Bell, Aenold,