From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Otis v. First Natl. Bank of Minneapolis

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mar 3, 1972
292 Minn. 497 (Minn. 1972)

Summary

holding that there was no opportunity for constructive notice where substance had been on floor for only 20 minutes

Summary of this case from Kulzer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Opinion

Nos. 42924, 43052.

March 3, 1972.

Negligence — fall by bank customer — failure to establish negligence.

Action in the Hennepin County District Court for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff when she fell on defendant's premises. The case was tried before William C. Christianson, a retired judge, and a jury, and at the close of plaintiff's case, the court directed a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff appealed from the order directing the verdict and from the judgment entered. Affirmed.

Jerome E. Kline, for appellant.

Richards, Montgomery, Cobb Bassford and Lynn G. Truesdell III, for respondent.

Considered by Knutson, C. J., and Otis, Peterson, Todd, and Mason, JJ.


Plaintiff slipped and fell on a small puddle of water, 3 to 5 inches in circumference, on defendant bank's floor near a teller's window. Except for this puddle and some adjacent small puddles, as well as some "damp footmarks," plaintiff could "walk just normal" on the "fine, dry floor." It had been raining hard, and the bank had been open only 20 minutes at the time plaintiff entered. The circumstances strongly suggest that the water was shed from the clothing or umbrellas of one or more persons who preceded plaintiff into the bank.

No evidence was introduced by plaintiff to show that defendant had actual or constructive notice of those puddles. The circumstances of time and condition were not such as to impose upon defendant a duty to have discovered and removed the puddle. The trial court accordingly directed a verdict for defendant, a ruling fully supported by Anderson v. St. Thomas More Newman Center, 287 Minn. 251, 178 N.W.2d 242 (1970), and Filipczak v. International Brotherhood of Elec. Workers, 292 Minn. 486, 195 N.W.2d 433 (1972).

See, also, Parker v. McCrory Stores Corp. 76 Pa. 122, 101 A.2d 377 (1954); Parks v. Montgomery Ward Co. 198 F.2d 772 (10 Cir. 1952); Deptula v. New Britain Trust Co. 19 Conn. Sup. 434, 116 A.2d 773 (1955); Tariff v. S. S. Kresge Co. 299 Mass. 129, 12 N.E.2d 79 (1937).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Otis v. First Natl. Bank of Minneapolis

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Mar 3, 1972
292 Minn. 497 (Minn. 1972)

holding that there was no opportunity for constructive notice where substance had been on floor for only 20 minutes

Summary of this case from Kulzer v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

holding that plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of a puddle of water that had accumulated on a bank floor on a rainy day, 20 minutes after the bank opened

Summary of this case from Peoples v. Buffets

holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of actual or constructive notice of water puddles on defendant's floor due to the "circumstances of time and condition"

Summary of this case from Pikula v. Wal-Mart

holding that plaintiff failed to show that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of a puddle of water that had accumulated on a bank floor on a rainy day, 20 minutes after the bank opened

Summary of this case from Rinn v. Minn. State Agric. Soc'y

determining bank did not have constructive knowledge of puddle on floor because bank opened only 20 minutes before accident

Summary of this case from Wojciehowski v. Labovitz Enterprises

indicating plaintiff must establish duty by either actual or constructive notice of dangerous condition

Summary of this case from Banovetz v. King
Case details for

Otis v. First Natl. Bank of Minneapolis

Case Details

Full title:BEVERLY OTIS v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Mar 3, 1972

Citations

292 Minn. 497 (Minn. 1972)
195 N.W.2d 432

Citing Cases

Stengel v. Casey's Retail Co.

In Otis v. First Nat'l Bank, for example, the supreme court held that 20 minutes was an insufficient amount…

Wojciehowski v. Labovitz Enterprises

Since the condition of the parking lot at the end of the work day before the accident was admittedly not…