Narrative Opinion Summary
Sara R. Fein initiated a tort action for personal injuries, with her husband claiming consequential damages. The case addresses the plaintiffs’ exceptions to the defendant’s motion for directed verdicts. Evidence presented showed that Mrs. Fein was visiting her sister in an apartment building where the common areas were managed by the defendant. While exiting, she slipped on what she described as “wet, oily wax” on the bottom stair, which she indicated looked and smelled like wax. Testimony revealed that the defendant’s employees regularly washed and waxed the common areas, typically on a weekly basis. The jury could infer that the area was frequently used and that the hazardous condition was due to improper waxing by the employees or the defendant’s negligence in allowing foot traffic on the wet floor. The court sustained the exceptions, indicating potential liability on the part of the defendant.
Legal Issues Addressed
Inference of Negligence from Circumstantial Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The jury was allowed to infer negligence from the circumstantial evidence presented, such as the regular maintenance schedule and the condition of the floor at the time of the incident.
Reasoning: The jury could infer that the area was frequently used and that the hazardous condition was due to improper waxing by the employees or the defendant’s negligence in allowing foot traffic on the wet floor.
Liability for Hazardous Conditions Created by Employeessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that there was a potential for liability due to the hazardous condition being created by the defendant’s employees, which warranted further examination rather than a directed verdict.
Reasoning: The court sustained the exceptions, indicating potential liability on the part of the defendant.
Negligence in Maintenance of Common Areassubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court considered whether the defendant's maintenance practices in common areas, specifically the waxing of floors, constituted negligence leading to personal injury.
Reasoning: Testimony revealed that the defendant’s employees regularly washed and waxed the common areas, typically on a weekly basis.