Case Summary: Mary Jacobsen v. Rosie Simons

Factual and Procedural Background

This action arose from personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff, a woman who fell down a flight of stairs leading to a basement when she believed she was entering a toilet room in a restaurant maintained by the defendant. The Municipal Court of the City of Boston issued the writ dated March 28, 1912. On appeal the case was tried in the Superior Court before Judge Bell.

Evidence introduced at trial included plans showing the toilet room measured eleven feet long by three feet two inches wide and was partitioned off from the restaurant's main room. The toilet room's entrance door opened outward from the room on hinges at its right. On a wall at one end of the toilet room, at right angles to the entrance door and only a few inches from it, there was another door two feet four inches wide that opened toward a person entering and was hinged at the right; that door led to the stairway down to the basement.

Testimony tended to show that the plaintiff, accompanied by a niece, was a customer at the restaurant; at the plaintiff's request the niece asked the defendant (who was at the counter) for the toilet; the defendant pointed to the toilet room and (according to the niece) said, "You go inside." The toilet room was described as dark. As the plaintiff went to enter, the outer toilet-room door was open; the plaintiff passed through that open door, opened the door leading to the stairway, stepped through it, and fell down the stairway.

At the close of the evidence in the Superior Court, the judge ordered a verdict for the defendant. The plaintiff excepted, and the matter was presented to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The opinion in this court was delivered by Justice Sheldon on February 28, 1914 (hearing noted January 16, 1914).

Legal Issues Presented

Whether, under the evidence, the plaintiff was invited by the defendant to use the toilet room such that the defendant owed a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the room and approaches reasonably safe for her use.
Whether there was evidence from which a jury could find that the plaintiff was exercising due care and that the defendant failed to exercise the care incumbent upon her, making negligence a question for the jury.
Whether the Superior Court judge erred in ordering a verdict for the defendant instead of submitting the case to the jury.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Toland v. Paine Furniture Co., 179 Mass. 501	That a proprietor who invites a person to use premises owes the duty of exercising reasonable care to see that the room and the approaches are reasonably safe for the invited person's use.	The court relied on this authority to state the legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff if the jury found she had been invited to use the toilet room.
Marwedel v. Cook, 154 Mass. 235	Support for the proposition that, where an invitee is injured, the facts may warrant a finding that the proprietor failed to exercise the care incumbent upon her to keep the premises safe.	The court cited it to show there was evidence upon which the jury could find the defendant failed in her duty and that the plaintiff was exercising due care.
Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578	Supporting the same general principle that negligence of an occupier toward an invitee may be found from the facts.	The court cited it alongside Marwedel to support the conclusion that the question of negligence was for the jury.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reasoned as follows, based solely on the evidence presented at trial:

The jury could have found that the plaintiff was not only permitted but invited to use the defendant's toilet room, based on testimony that the defendant pointed out the toilet and said "You go inside."
Given that an invitation was established, the defendant owed the plaintiff the duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure the toilet room and the approaches to it were reasonably safe for her use (citing Toland v. Paine Furniture Co.).
The court observed there was evidence from which the jury could find that the toilet room was dark, that the outer door was open, and that the door leading to the stairway was positioned at right angles and only a few inches from the outer door—facts from which the jury could infer a hazard and a breach of the proprietor's duty.
The court further noted that, regardless of the ultimate weight of the evidence, there was evidence upon which the jury could conclude the plaintiff was exercising due care and that her injury resulted from the defendant's failure to exercise the required care (citing Marwedel v. Cook and Holmes v. Drew).
Because these factual issues—invitation, duty, breach, and the plaintiff's exercise of care—were properly within the jury's province to decide, the case should not have been disposed of by a directed verdict for the defendant.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court held that the case should have been submitted to the jury and ordered that there must be a new trial.

Implications:

The immediate effect of the decision is to set aside the judgment entered on the directed verdict for the defendant and to require a new trial on the merits.
The decision rests on applying established Massachusetts authorities regarding an occupier's duty to invitees and does not announce or claim to establish a new legal principle beyond those cited precedents.

So ordered.

Show full summary ...

MARY JACOBSEN vs. ROSIE SIMONS.

Negligence, In maintenance of restaurant, Invited person. At the trial of an action by a woman against a restaurant keeper for personal injuries caused by the plaintiff falling down a flight of stairs leading to a basement when she supposed she was entering a toilet room, there was evidence tending to show that, while in the restaurant as a customer, she inquired for the toilet and the defendant pointed out the toilet room to her and said "You go inside;" that the toilet room was dark, and its outer door was open; that immediately at the left of the outer door on a wall at right angles with it was the door leading to the stairway; that the plaintiff passed through the open door, opened the door leading to the stairway, stepped through it and fell down the stairway. Held, that the plaintiff was invited by the defendant to use the toilet room, and that there was evidence upon which the jury were warranted in finding that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care and that the defendant had failed to exercise toward the plaintiff the duty of seeing that the approach to the toilet room was reasonably safe for her use.

SHELDON, J.

Upon the evidence the jury could have found that the plaintiff not only was permitted, but was invited, to use the defendant's toilet room. If so, the defendant owed to her the duty of exercising reasonable care to see that the room and the approaches by which the plaintiff was to get to it were reasonably safe for her use. Toland v. Paine Furniture Co. 179 Mass. 501. It seems also plain that, whatever the weight of the evidence might have been, there was evidence on which it could have been found that the plaintiff was in the exercise of due care, and that she was injured by reason of a failure of the defendant to exercise the care which was incumbent upon her for the purpose of keeping her premises safe for one whom she had invited to use them. Marwedel v. Cook, 154 Mass. 235. Holmes v. Drew, 151 Mass. 578.

It follows that the case should have been submitted to the jury, and there must be a new trial.