Reid v. Linck

Citations

• 206 Pa. 109
• 55 A. 849
• 1903 Pa. LEXIS 658

Syllabus

<p>Negligence — Unguarded elevator shaft — Province of court and, jury— Evidence.</p> <p>In an action against the owners of a store by a customer to recover damages for injuries sustained by falling into an unguarded elevator shaft, it appeared that on the day of the accident plaintiff went to the store to purchase an article of which he had a sample. He showed the sample to a salesman, who after examining it said: “I think we have a piece like that in the back room. We will go and see.” He then turned and walked into a storage room through which it was necessary to go to reach the back room. Plaintiff followed the salesman. The room was so dark that he lost sight of the salesman, but followed what he supposed to be the sound of his footsteps to the other end of the room, where he fell into the unguarded elevator shaft. There was testimony that it was not unusual for customers of the store to walk through this room in order to reach the backroom. Held, that the ease was for the jury and that a judgment and verdict for plaintiff should be sustained.</p> <p>In such a case where one of the defendants testified that he did not consider the place dangerous, it was not error to allow him to be asked on cross-examination whether other persons had not fallen down the elevator shaft before. Such question was proper to show his knowledge of the dangers of the place, and to affect his credibility.</p>