Negligence. Nuisance. Evidence, Opinion: experts. Practice, Civil, Exceptions.
In an action by a woman against a corporation maintaining a large department store, for personal injuries caused by the plaintiff's heel slipping from the narrow part of a step of a staircase at a point where three steps radiated from a post to make a turn in the staircase, by which the plaintiff was descending from the second floor to the first floor of the building, where it appeared that the stairs were lighted by a large arc electric light, it was held, that the maintenance of such a staircase, well lighted, was no evidence of negligence, the winding of the stairs in this manner being an ordinary method of construction well known and in common use in stores and office buildings.
At the trial of an action by a woman against a corporation maintaining a large department store, for personal injuries caused by the plaintiff's heel slipping on the narrow part of a step of a staircase where the stairs wound around a post to make a turn, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to show by an expert, after having shown the architectural features of the staircase and the conditions under which it was used, that such stairs under such conditions "were not regarded as safe."
At the trial of an action for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the defendant's negligence, where there is no evidence of negligence on the part of the defendant, the exclusion of evidence, which, if admissible at all, had a bearing only upon the due care of the plaintiff, does not injure the plaintiff and gives him no ground for exception.
SHELDON, J.
We find nothing in the evidence which could warrant a finding of any fault or negligence in the defendant. The staircase was of ordinary construction, winding in a manner which is well known and in common use in stores and office buildings. It was not in any respect out of repair. The steps were of proper kind and form. That the place was well lighted did not show any negligence; it might have tended to show negligence if it had not been. Marwedel v. Cook, 154 Mass. 235. The brass railing was an additional precaution for safety. The case resembles McIntire v. White, 171 Mass. 170.
The expert testimony that such stairs under such conditions "were not regarded as safe" was clearly incompetent. The testimony that the plaintiff's eyes were dazzled by the light and that therefore she failed to see the narrow part of the tread on which she fell had no tendency to show negligence in the defendant. Its utmost effect would be to indicate due care or the absence of negligence on her part; and that is not the point on which she fails. She was not aggrieved by the exclusion of this testimony.
The verdict for the defendant was rightly ordered.
Exceptions overruled.