Heinman v. United Properties, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Swenson v. Slawik

    53 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 1952)   Cited 11 times
    In Swenson v. Slawik, 236 Minn. 403, 410, 53 N.W.2d 107, 111, we stated that because he "had no other course to follow" in performing his job as garbage collector, the plaintiff did not necessarily assume the risk when he was injured using an elevator he knew was defective.

    2. It is also well established that when a landlord thus reserves control of a portion of his premises he is obligated to exercise ordinary care to keep the reserved property in a reasonably safe condition for those entitled and expected to use the same. Iverson v. Quam, supra; McGenty v. John A. Stephenson Co. 218 Minn. 311, 15 N.W.2d 874; Anderson v. Winkle, 213 Minn. 77, 5 N.W.2d 355; Heinman v. United Properties, Inc. 210 Minn. 343, 298 N.W. 247; 52 C.J.S., Landlord and Tenant, § 417(b), 418(a); Restatement, Torts, § 360. It follows that in the instant case the duty rested upon defendant to exercise ordinary care to maintain the elevator, the doors thereto, and the adjacent area in a reasonably safe condition for those entitled to the common use thereof. 3. An examination of the record discloses evidence which, in our opinion, reasonably sustains the finding that defendant failed in the exercise of this duty.

  2. McGenty v. John A. Stephenson Co.

    15 N.W.2d 874 (Minn. 1944)   Cited 9 times

    The rule is commonly applied in cases involving halls and stairways, as here, reserved for use of the possessor's and his tenant's invitees. Anderson v. Winkle, 213 Minn. 77, 5 N.W.2d 355; Heinman v. United Properties, Inc. 210 Minn. 343, 298 N.W. 247. Maintaining a floor with a defect of such a character as to constitute a hazard to those walking thereon, as, for example, a small hole in which the heel of a woman's shoe caught, is negligence. Hastings v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Inc. 189 Minn. 523, 250 N.W. 362. An obstacle over which a person might trip is no different in principle. Kern v. Great A. P. Tea Co. 241 N.Y. 600, 150 N.E. 572. Especially is this true where the location is dimly lighted or otherwise obscured.

  3. Huyink v. Hart Publications, Inc.

    2 N.W.2d 552 (Minn. 1942)   Cited 18 times
    In Huyink v. Hart Publications, 212 Minn. 87, 2 N.W.2d 552, we held that where a party has two ways to do an act and knows that one is safe and the other dangerous and he elects the dangerous one, he is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law because the choice involves an unreasonable exposure to the risk of injury.

    But if both choices appear to be safe and it turns out that the one selected was unsafe, as, for example, where a tenant in a building uses one of two stairways provided for the purpose and is injured by a defect, of which he had no knowledge, in the one used, he is not guilty of contributory negligence. Heinman v. United Properties, Inc. 210 Minn. 343, 298 N.W. 247. In Brusseau v. Selmo, 286 Mich. 171, 281 N.W. 580, a guest of a restaurant was held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law for failing to turn on the lights by means of a switch before descending a dark stairway leading to a toilet room in the basement.