Hochschild, Kohn Co. v. Cecil

Pattison, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment recovered by the appellee against the appellant for injuries sustained by her in entering the storehouse and premises of the defendants through a revolving door. The action in this case was brought upon a declaration containing two counts. The alleged negliglence charged against the defendants in the first, count causing the injury complained of, is that, they neglected to discharge and perform the duty of providing for" the safety of their customers “by having proper friction strips attached to said door, which strips were not properly attached, but the said strips had been worn, so- that the door revolved with a dangerous ease and rapidity, with which it should not have revolved”; and in the second count, they are charged with the failure “to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the control of the operation and movement of the said door.” ⁷² The plaintiff, a woman 68 years of age, in stating the circumstances of the accident, which occurred on December 4, 1915, said: “I went to Hoehschild’s (the defendant) upon the Howard street side, entering the first door; as I went in, the door was apparently moving very slowly, and I went in my usual way, I am always cautious, was always cautious, of those doors, and before I escaped the door there was a sudden blow, someone, or there came a sudden blow that threw me on the Root, struck me on my right arm and side and threw me on my left side on the floor.

It came so suddenly that I did not realize for an instant what had happened, and after a moment, of course, they came to' me and helped me up.” She further testified that it was the door that struck her, that she “felt the blow very decidedly.” That partitions in the door were of glass and she saw no one in front of her, at the time, passing through the door. Whatever motion there was came from behind and she failed to' see it; that she saw a colored man standing between the doors, that is, between the two revolving doors, one of which she entered. She could not say whether the man touched the door or not, but he did not stop' it, or it would not have struck her; that she was a regular customer at the store and was acquainted with the premises and the door through which she passed. She had gone through it many times.

As to this particular door she said, “somehow I always felt it was more dangerous, I do not know why, but it always seemed to me to be more dangerous than the others.” She said, “I did not stop in the door. I did not go very fast because I never do rush in those dooivs, but I went my ordinary gait.” When asked how she was thrown to- the floor she answered, “I was thrown on my left side, it struck m© on mv right shoulder and side, and my left side and hip sustained the injury, the fractured break.” There were no other witnesses offered by the plaintiff as to the circumstances of the happening of the accident. Joseph L. Downes, general agent of the Northwestern Life Insurance Company, and brother of the. plaintiff testified, ⁷³ that he examined the door sometime between the 10th and loth of December, and “found the rubbers on the sides that held the door in very bad shape” and the door, if you went through it at any ordinary speed, would go around four or five times,” by giving' the door “an ordinary push, it would keep going around unless somebody else went in there or the man caught it.” That the strips were placed on what he “would call the back of the arms,” that they were worn out and did not have the effect of retarding the speed of the door in revolving, “they barely touched” the well of the door. He testified that the door in which the accident occurred differed from the other door on Howai’d street in that it had a solid top; that he did not know whether this caused the door to go fast or not; that he examined other revolving doors in other department stores in the neighborhood and also, one at the Calvert Bank. “Those doors did not go anything like as fast as the door in which the plaintiff was injured, nor did the other door on Howard street in the same building.” John H. Driver, engaged in the business of supplying specialties to buildings, testified that he was familiar with revolving doors, that the door in question “is what is known as the Van Kannel Door, which is the pioneer revolving door.” He described such door by saying, “if you can imagine a table with one leg and fastened to the leg four flaps or wings, this table instead of being fastened at the top>, and supported at the top., it runs on an axle at the top, supported at the bottom, it works more like a top. than anything I can compare it to.” He stated that, “the speed of the door is governed by the friction of the strips, not weather strips, but side flaps that project and engage the well or opening which the door is in, so that the door cannot run away.” That there is. nothing about the door to prevent it from running away except the side flaps that brush the well; that they curve as. they go around, although they are apparently straight; that they act as a brake; that two of them at all times brush against the ⁷⁴ side of the well.

That they are made of hard rubber aud “should at least rub from a.quarter to a half inch on this surface.” Witness further said that a door used as much as the one in question should be inspected not less than once a week, and the “adjusting of the strips possibly once a month, and new strips not less than once a year, because weather conditions hurt a strip'. In the summer time it dries up'.” Witness then told how to adjust or remove the strips, and stated that when properly adjusted “the door will open and possibly one flap, will move one-third of the circumference of the door.” When the pressure is removed “the door will come back to a stand-still within about six inches,” and where the strips are properly adjusted the door is considered fairly safe. James B. Scott, Consulting Engineer, when produced by the plaintiff testified that the rubber strip, has two or three functions; first of all, it performs the function of a weather strip, and in addition to that it retards the revolution of the door “so the speed will not become excessive without an abnormal amount of power being exerted on the door.” That it also performs the function of a flexible edge so if a person should inadvertently get his fingers caught between the well of one of the strips- “they would meet the yielding surface of the rubber instead of being sheared off as they would be if the doors were rigid at the edge.” He further stated, however, if the rubber strip was not used “it would be necessary from a point of safety, to adopt-some other device to dampen the revolution of the door,” but the use of these strips is “the simplest and most common sense way to accomplish the object”; and that they also accomplish “two ox1 three other' objects at the same time.” Witness in speaking of the Van Kannel Door said it is what you might call an obsolete type of door. “You might say it was one of the original doors, the pioneer door.” That it differs from the modern door in that the latter has “a sta ⁷⁵ tionary ceiling,” and a rubber strip at the top¡ and bottom which furnishes additional friction, although the main point, where the friction is applied is at the circumference of the door. The principal advantage, however, in the modern door, over the other, “is that it eliminates this big fly wheel top,” which in the former type revolved with the door, and gives to its movement a greater momentum.” There were other witnesses produced by the plaintiff who testified as to the character and extent of the injuries sustained by her, but it is not necessary to- state the evidence of these witnesses in deciding the questions of law presented by this appeal.

Walter Sondheim, the general manager of the defendant linn, offered by the defendant, testified that he did not know of any difference between the movement of the old and new type of doors, but was inclined to think that the old type was more difficult to revolve than the new typo. It revolved less freely than the new, and required a little more effort to push it around. The strips, as ho stated, were put there for two reasons, cue to keep