Lamberson

At all pertinent times, appellant, an Illinois corporation, operated a retail store in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The store faced west. In front of it a sidewalk ran north and south. The store had four front doors — - doors by which it could be entered from the sidewalk. On November 26, 1941, Lydia Lamberson, wife of Chester A. Lamberson, 1 entered the store by one of its front doors, remained about 30 minutes and left by the same door. That door was seven feet from the sidewalk. A ramp 2 *98 extended from the door to the sidewalk. The ramp was made of rough tile. It was almost, but not quite, level, being one inch higher at the door than at the sidewalk. Upon leaving the store, Lydia Lamberson slipped and fell on the ramp and was injured. She and her husband, hereafter called appellees, brought an action against appellant for damages in the sum of $25,195, alleging that her injuries were caused by appellant’s negligence. Answering, appellant denied that allegation. Jury trial was waived, the case was tried by the court, findings of fact and conclusions of law were stated, and judgment was entered in appellees’ favor for $1,945. From that judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

Appellees…

(dissenting).

The complaint, after describing the slippery tile in the store entrance and plaintiff’s entering as an invitee and slipping on the tile while it was wet with water, alleges negligence as follows:

The district court found such negligence, *100 stating that at the time Mrs. Lamberson departed from the store,

and further found concerning Mrs. Lamberson’s fall and injury when passing over the ramp that “it was due to defendant’s negligence, and the absence of any ashes or sand or matting on said ramp or entrance-way, she slipped and fell on the ramp or entrance-way.” (Tr. 23.) The allegation of “maintaining” the tiled entrance in a slick and dangerous condition and the finding of “allowing” the water “to be” and remain “there,” affirmatively describe a negligent violation of an obligation to the invitee.

The majority opinion not only ignores the finding of negligence and the facts relied upon by the district. court in finding negligence, but affirmatively states that the essential facts shown in the record, from which the inference of negligence may be drawn, do not exist.

The majority opinion states, “The court did not find, nor was there any evidence from which it…