Sylvia

Sylvia v. Mellema

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 2d 728·1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 646·62 P.2d 746
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 30, 1936Civ. 11179California250 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wood, J.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in iavor of defendants entered upon the return of the verdict of a jury. Plaintiff was a tenant in the apartment house conducted by defendants Mellema. She alleged in her complaint that the janitor of the apartment, defendant Amonoy, negligently left a puddle of soapy water on the kitchen floor causing her to slip and be thrown to the floor. She asked for damages suffered in the fall. Defendants deny negligence on their part and allege contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff. Upon the presentation of these issues to the jury a verdict was returned against plaintiff.

Plaintiff complains of the giving of the following instruction: “There was no absolute duty on the part of defendants to have the floor in a reasonably safe condition to walk upon. In this regard I instruct you that defendants’ duty was fulfilled when defendants used ordinary care, if you find that they did 'use ordinary care.” We. find no error in this instruction. The proprietors of the apartment house were not insurers of plaintiff’s safety. It was their duty to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a safe condition. In Mautino v. Sutter Hosp. Assn., 211 Cal. 556 [ 296…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.