Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

74 So. 2d 770

Briscoe v. Bailey

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided June 21, 1954

Louisiana Court of Appeal · decided 1954-06-21

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"* * * The plaintiff, wholly unfamiliar with the premises, opens a closed door revealing, according to her own testimony, nothing but darkness into which she imprudently advances and falls down the stairway. It was her own negligence that caused her mishap."”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Curet v. Hiern, 117 So. 2d 295 - Mahfouz v. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS, ETC.

“would come to a door, and push it open and walk in there.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Curet v. Hiern

Relies on Caulfield v. Saba

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1954-06-21

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 1973

8 state decisions

30195419601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

REDMANN, Judge ad hoc.

¶1Plaintiff (joined by her husband claiming medical expenses) sues for damages for personal injuries sustained on defendants’ premises resulting from her falling down a stairway. The suit was dismissed; the wife alone has appealed.

¶2The plaintiff’s brother rented a room and bath from defendants, located on the second story of the building. The room and bath each had a door opening on to a lateral gallery running towards the rear of the premises. Adjoining the bath was another room with a door opening on to the gallery occupied by another tenant. Next to this was another door to the platform of'a stairway leading to the ground floor. Next to this door and at the extreme rear end of the gallery was a louver door to a toilet, which was for the common use of the tenants on the second floor.

¶3The plaintiff and her husband were visiting her brother and his wife in his room on the night of November 17, 1949. It was plaintiff’s first visit to the premises. She inquired of her brother’s wife about the location of the toilet and was told to go to the rear end of the gallery and she “would come to a door, and push it open and walk in there.”

¶4Evaluating the evidence most favorably for plaintiff, there was very little light on the gallery (the time being about 8:00 or 9:00 o’clock at night) and that only from the street light and from a nearby building. Plaintiff, instead of going to the last door, opened the door leading to the platform, took a few steps in the darkness, and fell down the stairway.

¶5Plaintiff’s theory is that the manner m which the stairway and the door to its platform as situated constituted a trap, made worse by the absence of any lighting fixture at either the door or the platform.

¶6Paraphrasing the language of this Court in Caulfield v. Saba, 144 So. 907; We do not believe that our law imposes any dpty upon the landlord to illuminate galleries used in common by a number of tenants during the nighttime. If it be said, that it must reasonably be contemplated, that tenants (and their guests) would be required to use a gallery in order to get to a common toilet during the night, as well as the day, our answer is that in going to and fro in the night a tenant (or guest) should provide herself with some form of portable light, such as a candle, lamp, *771or flashlight, or assume the consequences of her failure to take this measure of protection.

¶7No claim is made as to any defect or vice in the platform or the stairway. The plaintiff, wholly unfamiliar with the premises, opens a closed door revealing, according to her own testimony, nothing hut darkness into which she imprudently advances and falls down the stairway. It was her own negligence that caused her mishap.

¶8Accordingly the judgment appealed from is affirmed at appellant’s cost.

¶9Affirmed.

/74/so2d/770 · .json · Public domain