This is аn action to recover damages resulting from the alleged negligence of defendants. On the 9th of March, 1948, defendant Montgomery Ward & Company was operating a store in the city of Ironwood, and was engaged in the business of selling goods, wares and merchandise to the public. Plaintiff’s declaration alleged that on the day in question she undertook to return to the store a package that she had previously obtained there, and that she slipped and fell in the entraneeway to the store, sustaining certain specific physical injuries. The pleading further averred that it was the duty of' the defendants to mаintain the premises in a safe condition for plaintiff’s use, and that they had breached the duty. Answers denying liability were filed by defendants.
The case was tried before a jury. At the conclusion of the opening statement of plaintiff’s counsel, defendants moved for directed verdicts in their favor, claiming that the declaration did not sufficiently charge negligence and that the opening statement was subject to the same objection. The motions were denied. At the conclusion of plaintiff’s proofs defendants made further motions for directed verdicts in their favor, asserting that the testimony introduced was insufficient to establish negligence on the part of the defendants and freedom from negligence, on plaintiff’s part, contributing to the accident. The motion was taken under advisement as to defendants Skowronski and Montgomery Ward & Company, and was granted as to defendants Ernest and Clara Boileau.
*473 The last named defendants were joined in the action on the basis of plaintiff’s claim, set forth in the declaration, that they were the owners of the property in question and were, in consequence, charged with certain duties to the public in maintaining it in a reasonably safe condition. The record indicates that, in fact, thеy owned a part interest only, that their co-owners were not joined in the action, that the property had been leased to Montgomery Ward & Company, and that undei\the terms of the lease the owners were not charged with any obligation in connection with the maintenance or operation of the store property. No appeal has been taken from the judgment entered in favor of defendants Boileau: Further reference to them is not required.
At the conclusion of the testimony in the ease defendants Skowronski and Montgomery Ward & Company renewed their prior motion for a dirеcted verdict, on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to justify a verdict against either. The motion was taken under advisement and the ease submitted to the jury which returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff against both defendants in- the sum of $7,500. Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a new trial were made and denied. Said defendants have appealed claiming that the trial court was in error in refusing to direct verdicts in their favor. The further claim is made that, because of alleged errors in the course of the proceedings, they were entitled to a new trial.
The assertion of liability on the part of defendаnt Skowronski wms based on the claim, set forth in the declaration, that at the time of plaintiff’s accident said defendant was acting as store manager for Montgomery Ward & Company, and that ‘ as such she was charged with certain duties for the safety of plaintiff, which she failed to observe. The undis *474 puled testimony on the trial disclosed that Mrs. •Skowronski was not at the time of the occurrence the manager, snch position being held by another ■employee. Neither did it appear that she was charged with any duties with reference to the maintenance of the entranceway. It must be held, in consequence, that no liability to plaintiff on her part was established. A verdict should have been directed in her favor.
This brings us to a consideration of the claims advanced on behalf of Montgomery Ward & Company, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. As before noted, the motion, made on the tidal following the opening statement of counsel for plaintiff was based on the alleged failure of the declaration, and the statement, to charge negligence. It is significant in this respect that answers to plaintiff’s pleading were filed without any question being raised as to the sufficiency of the allegations of actionable negligence. That plaintiff was an invitee, as claimed by her, is not in dispute.
The declaration alleged the duty of the defendant to keep and maintain its place of business in a reasonably safe and proper condition to the end that ■customers and patrons entering or leaving the store would not be in danger of receiving injuries by ■slipping or falling because of any defective condition ■of the approach. It was further averred that defendant failed to observe the duties resting on it as invitor and specifically that it failed to remove accumulations of snow and ice from the entrаnce to the store, knowing that the accumulations were present and were dangerous to persons entering and leaving. Without discussing the matter in further detail, we are brought to the conclusion that the declaration was not open to the objections urged against it. The •opening statement of counsel presented plaintiff’s ■claims as set forth in her pleading and was sufficient *475 in substance. Tbe trial court was not in error in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict based on tbe alleged insufficiency of the declaration and the statement.
In determining whether defendant was entitled to a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff’s proofs the testimony introduced by her must be construed as strongly as possible in her favor.
Loveland
v.
Nelson,
It was plaintiff’s claim that after she had an opportunity to examine the contents of the package she-concluded that they were not satisfactory. As a result she returned to the store of the defendant for the purpose of putting in a further order. The-weather at that time, approximately 10:30 in the-forenoon, was a little brighter and a little warmer *476 than it had been on the occasion of her first visit. •She described the condition of the vestibule or entrance at that time as “slippery and icy and a little .slushier than it was earlier in the morning.” She stated further than she saw the angle iron at the time but didn’t notice any ice on it. In рroceeding toward the door of the store she stepped on the ■angle iron. Her foot slipped and she fell. She testified that after getting up she looked to see on-what she had slipped, and noticed a thin transparent ■coat of ice on the bar. She explained her failure to notice it before stepping on it on the ground that “it was transparent, it was such a thin coat.” Further testimony by the plaintiff related to the nature and extent of her injuries and her physical condition thereafter. Other witnesses in her behalf, including 2 physicians, corroborated her claims with reference to pain and suffering, disability resulting from the fall, and the character of the injuries.
Construed in accordance with the rule above stated, may it properly be said that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of liability on the part of the defendant? As invitor the defendant owed the duty to its customers and patrons, including the plaintiff, of maintaining its premises in a reasonably safe condition and of exercising due care to prevent and to obviate the existence of a situation, known to it or that should have been known, that might result in injury. In
Blakeley
v.
White Star Line,
“ ‘One is under nо obligation to keep his premises in safe condition for the visits of trespassers. On the other hand, when he expressly or by implication invites others to come upon his premises, whether for business or for any other purpose, it is his duty to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them *477 Into danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit.’ ”
Plaintiff testified positively to the presence of snow and ice in the entrance to defendant’s store. It was her claim that a thin coating of ice on the angle bar was directly responsible for her slipping and falling. If the condition described in the testimony existed at 9:45, it is a fair inference, in view of the weather conditions, that the entrance had not been swept out or scraped out that morning. Under the rule as stated by Justice Cooley there was at least an issue of fact as to whether defendant had exercised proper precautions to enable its customers to enter the store with reasonable assurance of safety in so doing.
Neither may it be said that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. She had previously entered the store, and had left it, without mishap. When she аrrived there at 10:30 in the morning in question she looked at the floor in the vestibule and noted that it was somewhat slushier than on the occasion of her first visit but otherwise the condition was not appreciably changed. Her explanation as to her failure to note the condition of the angle bar is not illogical. If, as she claimed, the coating of ice on the bar was thin and transparent, it is a fair assumption that it could not have been seen by her except by rather close scrutiny. Under the circumstances suggested by her testimony it does not clearly appear that, a reasonably careful and prudent person would have acted otherwise under the same or like circumstances. It may not be said that no reasonably minded person would have considered her free from contributory negligence. The question became one *478 of fact, and, as such, was for the determination of the jury.
In
Reedy
v.
Goodin,
“Contributory negligence is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury, if there is one, unless the evidence so plainly and clearly establishes such contributory negligence that no reasonable man could come to any other conclusion. Frary v. Grand Rapids Taxicab Co.,227 Mich 445 . If plaintiff was in the exercise of ordinary care under all of the circumstаnces, he was not guilty of contributory negligence; and what is ordinary care is usually a question of fact. It is the care which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances.”
Likewise, in
Desendorf
v.
Packers Outlet, Inc.,
“Whether there was ice and snow in vestibule of defendant’s grocery store where plaintiff is alleged to have fallen or whether defendant • knew or had cause to know of a condition of the premises likely to cause injury held, a question of fact for trial judge who heard case without a jury.”
In Thompson v. Michigan Cab Co., supra, the claim was made that the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding at the time of the accident involved in the cаse was guilty of contributory negligence. In discussing such claim, it was said:
“It is an impossibility to lay down precise rules by which we may measure all acts of contributory negligence. Some cases must, of necessity, stand or fall on their own facts. What one does or fails to do as relates to the circumstances under which he acts is the test to be applied. Flynn v. Kramer,271 Mich 500 , 505. * * *
“Were Benjamin’s actions those of an ordinary careful and prudent man under like circumstances? Can the minds of reasonable men differ in answer *479 ing this question ? If so, the evidence should he submitted to a jury. Adams v. Canfield,263 Mich 666 . In cases of this character, it should be made very plain by the proofs that the conduct of plaintiff’s driver was negligent before he should be declared to be guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Frary v. Grand Rapids Taxicab Co.,227 Mich 445 .”
This Court has repeatedly held that each case of this nature must be determined on .its own facts.
Strong
v.
Kittenger,
It has been held, also, by this Court that it is not negligence, as a matter of law, for one to attempt to pass over a highway known to be defective. See
Sherman
v.
Consumers’ Power Co.,
The facts invólved in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. McLravy (CCA), 71 F2d 396, are analogous in many respects to those in the instant case. There plaintiff fell on an accumulation of ice and snow while leaving'defendant’s grocery store in the city of Hastings. Motion for a directed verdict on the trial in district court was denied, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court of appeals' for the sixth circuit, claiming that there was no substantial evidence to show negligence on its part and that the appellee was guilty оf contributory negligence as a matter of law. The judgment in plaintiff’s favor was affirmed. As in the case at bar, the testimony with reference to the condition of the entrance to the store was contradictory. Witnesses for the defendant claimed that there was no ice in the vestibule, while plaintiff claimed that when she entered the store the vestibule was icy and slippery. Her testimony in this respect was corroborated: In holding that-defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict, it was said:
“It. is unquestionably the law that a storekeeper owes to his.customers the duty of exercising reasonable carе to keep his premises and access thereto in a safe condition for their use, and upon the evidence we do not think’ that appellant was entitled to a directed verdict'Upon either of the grounds urged.”
It was further urged by appellant that there was no evidence that its agents knew the dangerous condition of the vestibule, or that there were circumstances charging it .with knowledge thereof. In rejecting the argument, the court said :•
“Passing'over-the first point and coming directly' to the second, appellant was charged with knowledge of that which in the exercise of reasonable carе it *481 might have ascertained. ‘Reasonable care’ is relative. It varies in degree as applied to different situations. The law requires a merchant to devote more attention to the safety of the entranceway to his store through which his customers are expected and invited to come than to those portions not open to the public. He must exercise proper diligence to keep the entranceway reasonably safe, and he cannot disregard the duty of inspection nor the duty of applying necessary corrective measures at reasonable intervals. Wе think that it was properly left to the jury to determine whether appellant discharged this, obligation.”
With reference to appellant’s claim that appellee was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law, the court commented as follows:
“Appellee admits that she knew the icy condition of the vestibule but she had walked over the slippery streets from her home, a distance of 2’ blocks, without injury. As she came out of the store she naturally thought that her rubber overshoes would to some extent serve as a safeguard. She testified that she walked carefully and that just before she slippеd she put her hand upon one of the posts (evidently meaning one of the pilasters) to protect herself. Numerous other people were coming and going in safety. Her alternatives were to call for ássistance or to wait until the vestibule was cleaned or to pass out through a rear door into an alley, which was not shown to be a safer way. We cannot say as a matter of law that she should have taken any other, course than the one adopted.”
The above decision was cited with approval by this Court in
Perl
v.
Cohodas, Peterson, Paoli, Nast Co.,
We think the foregоing decisions clearly indicate the applicable rule in the case at bar. Defendant’s *482 negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence were factual issues for the jury. Counsel for appellant argues that the condition to which the plaintiff testified was not shown to have existed for such length of time as to charge defendant with knowledge thereof. The quoted comment of the circuit court of appeals of the sixth circuit in Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. McLravy, supra, with reference to a like contention there made, is in point here. As before noted, it is a fair inference that if the vestibule at 9:45 in the morning was in the condition claimеd by plaintiff, such condition had not come about as of that moment but had continued throughout the prior portion of the morning. We may take notice of the fact that the condition as to ice and snow in an open vestibule on a clear day, with no proof of snow blowing into such entrance, is not of such nature that it may come into existence in the matter of a few minutes. The conclusion is fully justified from plaintiff’s proofs that the vestibule had not been cleaned that morning. Whether defendant’s employees made proper inspection of the condition of the vestibule at reasonable intervаls, and took necessary precautions to protect its customers from injury, was a question of fact.
The situation here is not at all comparable to that in
Carpenter
v.
Herpolsheimer's Co.,
On the trial of the case in circuit court it was defendant’s claim that the vestibule of the store was, on the occasion in question, wholly free from ice and snow. Several witnesses, who were employees of defendant at the time of the accident, testified in its behalf, including the manager of the store at that time. Some portions of such testimony are of special significance. Mrs. Hewitt, the manager in question, testified that she always reached the store by 9 o’clock in the morning and that it was one of her duties to clean off any snow and ice accumulation in and about the premises. She claimed that she removed snow from the vestibule on the previous day, that the entranceway was large and open, and that wind would blow snow into it. She further stated that she did not clean the entranceway on the morning of March 9,1948, that the sidewalk in front of the store was clean, and that if there had been any snow on the walk or in the vestibule “it would have been cleaned that morning.” The witness also testified that she was absent from the store at the time the plaintiff came there, and did not see her.
Mrs. Hewitt testified positively on her re-direct examination that she did not clean the еntraneeway and walk the morning of March 9th “because it was *484 absolutely clean of snow and ice.” Such testimony clearly implies that she examined the vestibule and, in consequence, knew its condition, whatever that may have been. Obviously the jury accepted plaintiff’s claim as to the presence of snow and ice and the condition generally of the entrance to the store. In view of the conflicting testimony, it clearly rested with the jury to determine the truth of the matter.
The following testimony of Mrs. Hewitt indicates the general situation with reference to the use of the store entrance:
“Q. Were there a lot of people traveling back and forth into this store?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Were there accumulations of snow brought into this entranceway, which was a large entrance-way, by the traffic?
“A. I know we always had to keep it cleared of snow. I don’t know how many times we had to do it in a day.
“Q. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Hewitt, business was good at the Montgomery Ward store in Ironwood in March, 1948, and there was considerable traffic, so good a lot of people walked into this big entranceway, and oftentimes during the day it required your cleaning out this entranceway, sweeping it out?
“A. Yes, during the day.”
The duties of the manager with reference to clеaning the entranceway were further testified to by defendant’s witness, Mrs. Helen Raymond, also a former employee. She stated that if there had been any snow or ice in the vestibule on the morning of March 9, 1948, it would have been removed by the manager, which testimony suggests that it was the recognized duty of the manager to inspect the entranceway and to take such action as might be necessary to render it reasonably safe for customers and patrons of the store.
*485 ■ Defendant also offered as a witness a weather observer who testified that; according to his records, the maximum temperature оn March 8,1948, was 28°, and the minimum Avas 18°, with a snowfall of one-half inch. According to such records there was no snowfall on March 9th, the maximum temperature was 21° and the minimum was 7° below zero. It Avas for the jury to determine what inferences might be drawn from the testimony as to the weather conditions existing at, and prior to, the accident, as well as from the statements of the other witnesses who testified on behalf of defendant as to the procedure followed in keeping the entrance to the store free from ice and snow.
At the conclusion of the proofs the matter of defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributоry negligence remained issues of fact. The trial court Avas correct in submitting the case to the jury. The defendant Avas not entitled to a directed verdict at any time during the course of the trial, and the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the jury was properly denied. While
Corfeld
v.
Douglas Houghton Hotel Co.,
In its motion for a neAV trial defendant alleged error in the failure of the court to direct a verdict in its favor, and, also, certain errors claimed tо have occurred during the course of the trial. As above concluded, the refusal to grant the motion for judgment notAvithstanding the verdict was not error. It remains to be considered whether the claim of the appellant as to prejudicial error on the trial is tenable.
Incorporated in one of defendant’s requests to charge was a statement as folknvs:
*486 “It has been held that a period of time from Monday night to Friday following is not sufficient length of "time to hold a defendant liable for an icy condition on a sidewalk.”
The trial court, while giving the balance of the request, did not include the language quoted. Appellant insists that such omission was error. The request was apparently based on the decision of this Court in
Corey
v.
City of Ann Arbor,
Complaint is also made that the court failed to charge the jury as to what would be a reasonable length of time for a condition to exist-so as to charge defendant with constructive notice of its dangerous
*487
character. We do not find that any request for a charge of the character in question was submitted. Such being the situation, appellant may not now complain that the judge failed to prepare and give a specific instruction as to the length of time required in the instant case to impute notice of the dangerous condition of the vestibule. The charge as given, in effеct, left it to the jury to say whether or not the condition, if found to be as plaintiff claimed, had existed for such length of time as to charge defendant with notice of it. The question was properly considered as presenting a factual issue for determination by the jury.
Hendershott
v.
City of Grand Rapids,
Appellant’s further claim that the conduct of counsel for the plaintiff in their argument to the jury was so prejudicial to defendant as to require a reversal of the judgment and the granting of a new trial has been examined and found to be without merit.
As noted, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $7,500. Appellant claims that such amount is excessive and out of reasonable proportion to the damages shown by the proofs. The testimony establishes that plaintiff’s injuries were serious and painful. At the time of the trial she had a deformed finger which the proofs indicated might be corrected by an operation, involving expense as well as attendant pain and suffering. Apparently the most serious injury was that to her right elbow. There was medical testimony to the effect that such injury is permanent. Plaintiff at the time of the trial suffered from a limitation of motion in the joint. The testimony of a physician, an orthopedist specialist, was to the effect that the radius wаs out of position and that, due to an abnormal wearing away of the cartilage, exposure of the bone and traumatic arthritis will result. The *488 witness further stated that such a condition is painful.
There is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the jury may have been prejudiced or biased by any occurrence in the course of the trial. It has been repeatedly recognized in prior decisions of this Court that the awarding of damages for pain and suffering rests in the sound judgment of the jury, or of the judge in a case tried without a jury. What was said in
Teeter
v.
Pugsley,
“The amount allowed for pain and suffering must rest in the sound judgment of the trier of the facts. We do not substitute our judgment on this question unless а verdict has been secured by improper methods, prejudice, or sympathy. No such showing has been made; nor is this portion of the judgment so great as to shock the judicial conscience. Watrous v. Conor,266 Mich 397 , 401.”
See, also,
Brebner
v.
Sidney Hill Health System, Inc.,
As appears from plaintiff’s declaration, her husband assigned to her, prior to the bringing of suit, his claimed cause of action for damages sustained by him due to her injuries, and resultant incapacity, and medical and hospital expenses. The amount of such damages proved was presumably ‘included by the jury in its verdict, and must in consequence be taken into account in determining whether or not it is excessive. A consideration of the entire record, particularly the testimony with reference to the injuries sustained by plaintiff, who was 39 years of age at the timé of the accident, the pain and suffering that she endured up to the time of the trial, and the probability of further and' continued pain and *489 inconvenience, brings us to the conclusion that appellant’s claim is not well founded.
We find in the record no error of such nature as to require a reversal as to the defendant Montgomery Ward & Company. Such judgment is affirmed, with costs to the plaintiff. As to the defendant Albina Skowronslri the judgment is reversed without a new trial and the case is remanded with directions to set aside the judgment against her and to enter judgment in her behalf. She may have costs against the plaintiff.