Blodgett v. B. H. Dyas Co., 50 P.2d 801 (Cal. 1935). · Go Syfert
Search
Blodgett v. B. H. Dyas Co., 50 P.2d 801 (Cal. 1935). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1944 · …necessarily inherent in the nature of the activity carried on at p. 512 ⚠ not in text
124 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Tabita v. City of Los Angeles CA2/1 (calctapp, 2020-10-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1936 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1936 1981 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tabita v. City of Los Angeles CA2/1
Cal. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Dyas Co. (1935) 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [affirming judgment of non-suit against the plaintiff on causation; “ ‘The evidence shows that the lack of the handrail was neither the proximate nor any cause of [the] plaintiff’s fall.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lightbourn v. Casa Del Mar CA2/4
Cal. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Dyas Co. (1935) 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [no liability for absence of handrail required by ordinance where its absence did not cause plaintiff’s fall or ensuing injuries].) Establishing the element of causation requires a showing that the defendant’s breach was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hazelwood v. Gordon
Cal. Ct. App. · 1967 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]; Holmes v. Moesser, 120 Cal.App.2d 612, 614 [ 262 P.2d 27 ] [directed verdict for defendant affirmed where plaintiff alleged injury in stairway fall].) 2 Appellant’s own testimony showed she fell from improperly placing her foot on the very top step of the staircase.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Henderson v. McGill
Cal. Ct. App. · 1963 · confidence medium
Dyas Co. (1935) 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ].) Even though there was no default in inspection, if injury to an invitee can be traced to faulty construction or to other negligence “creating the dangerous condition, or to the failure to take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from dangers foreseeably attendant on the arrangement or use of the premises,” a defendant may be liable.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Montijo v. Western Greyhound Lines
Cal. Ct. App. · 1963 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [ 50 P.2d 801 ] ; Puckhaber v. Southern Pac.
cited Cited as authority (rule) VIRGINIA CHANCE v. Lawry's, Inc.
Cal. · 1962 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burdette v. Rollefson Construction Co. (2×)
Cal. · 1959 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]; Wohlenberg v. Malcewicz, 56 Cal.App.2d 508, 512 [ 133 P.2d 12 ].) Otherwise stated, ‘. . . the act or omission must proximately cause or contribute to the injury.’ (Hitson v. Dwyer, 61 Cal.App.2d 803, 808 [ 143 P.2d 952 ].) In the Blodgett ease, the plaintiff sustained injury from falling down a stairway which, in violation of an ordinance, was not equipped with a center handrail.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Decker v. S. H. Kress Co.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1959 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ] ; Weddle v. Heath, 211 Cal. 445, 452 [ 295 P. 832 ] ; Shanley v. American Olive Co., 185 Cal. 552, 555 [ 197 P. 793 ].) Many of the cases add the obvious corollary *368 that where the condition which results in injury to the invitee is actually as well known to the invitee as to the property owner no liability arises.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rufo v. N. B. C. National Broadcasting Co.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1959 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]), crowds are almost a matter of course in metropolitan areas, and it was there stated at page 936: *722 mercantile life in large cities.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laird v. T. W. Mather, Inc. (2×)
Cal. · 1958 · confidence medium
Dyas, 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ] ; see 2 Rest., Torts, § 343.) Defendant contends that its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted on the grounds that the evidence discloses as a matter of law that it exercised the required degree of care in the maintenance of its premises and that the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pauly v. King (2×)
Cal. · 1955 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]; Jones v. Bridges, 38 Cal.App.2d 341, 345 [ 101 P.2d 91 ].) Ample evidence supports the implied finding that the order of construction here followed is consistent with due care.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Holmes v. Moesser
Cal. Ct. App. · 1953 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [3] [ 50 P.2d 801 ].) *615 Since there was a total absence of any evidence of negligence on the part of defendant other than the failure to provide a handrail, assuming this failure constituted negligence, such negligence is immaterial in the instant case, for, as the Supreme Court said in Blodgett v. B.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mariotti v. Berns
Cal. Ct. App. · 1952 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]; Dingman v. A. F. Mattock Co., 15 Cal.2d 622, 624 [ 104 P.2d 26 ]; Blumberg v. M. & T.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robinson v. King
Cal. Ct. App. · 1952 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [4] [ 50 P.2d 801 ].) Second: Was plaintiff contributorily negligent as a matter of law?
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nunneley v. Edgar Hotel (2×)
Cal. · 1950 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 513 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]; Wohlenberg v. Malcewicz, 56 Cal.App.2d 508, 512 [ 133 P.2d 12 ].) Otherwise stated, "... the act or omission must proximately cause or contribute to the injury." (Hitson v. Dwyer, 61 Cal.App.2d 803, 808 [ 143 P.2d 952 ].) In the Blodgett case, the plaintiff sustained injury from falling down a stairway which, in violation of an ordinance, was not equipped with a center handrail.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Golceff v. Sugarman
Cal. · 1950 · confidence medium
Dyas Co. (1935), 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]; Johnston v. De La Guerra Properties, Inc. (1946), 28 Cal.2d 394, 399-400 [ 170 P.2d 5 ].) In his complaint plaintiff alleged that he was invited to use the ladder, that defendant negligently permitted the ladder “to become dangerous, defective and in an unsound condition” so that plaintiff was caused to “fall off” the ladder and “to be thrown to the floor” and injured.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brown v. San Francisco Ball Club, Inc.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1950 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ] ; Dingman v. A. F. Mattock Co, 15 Cal.2d 622, 624 [ 104 P.2d 26 ].) \To the extent that tip duty \o£ self-protection rests upon the invitee, the duty of the invitoT to protect is reduced.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Blumberg v. M. & T. Incorporated (4×)
Cal. · 1949 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 512-513 [ 50 P.2d 801 ]; Shanley v. American Olive Co., 185 Cal. 552, 555 [ 197 P. 793 ]; Royal Insurance Co. v. Mazzei, 50 Cal.App.2d 549, 552-553 [ 123 P.2d 586 ]), and (c) invites or permits them to enter or remain upon the land without exercising reasonable care (i) to make the condition reasonably safe, or (ii) to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm." (2 Restatement, Torts, 343, pp. 938-939.) It was therefore incumbent on plaintiffs to present evidence from which reasonable men could conclude: (1) that defendants should have realized that the m…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Neuber v. Royal Realty Co.
Cal. Ct. App. · 1948 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal. 2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ].) We are persuaded that it must be held, eliminating consideration of ordinance violations, to which we shall later give consideration, that the evidence was insufficient to warrant submission to the jury under the first cause of action of the question whether respondents were guilty of common law negligence or a lack of ordinary care, which proximately contributed to appellant’s injuries.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Donahoo v. Kress House Moving Corp. (2×)
Cal. · 1944 · confidence medium
Dyas Co. (1935), 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ].) The moving of the two houses and the resultant conditions created by defendants involved a risk which should have been known to plaintiff because the risk was “necessarily inherent in the nature of the activity carried on” (II Rest., Torts, § 340, Comment c) and it was obvious to the senses.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hill v. Eaton & Smith
Cal. Ct. App. · 1944 · confidence medium
Dyas Co., 4 Cal.2d 511, 512 [ 50 P.2d 801 ], the court states: “The owner of property, in so far as an invitee is concerned, is not an insurer of safety but must use reasonable care to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition and give warning of latent or concealed perils.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ANNA BLODGETT Et Al., Appellants,
v.
B. H. DYAS CO., Respondent
L. A. 15266.
California Supreme Court.
Oct 25, 1935.
50 P.2d 801
1935 Cal. LEXIS 576
F. E. Blodgett, Edward Fitzpatrick and George R. Maury for Appellants., . Joe .Crider, Jr., for Respondent.
Cited by 66 opinions  |  Published
THE COURT.

After a further consideration of the opinion of the District Court of Appeal, we arc convinced that it has reached a correct conclusion therein. We therefore adopt said opinion, written by Justice pro tempore Edmonds of the Second District Court of Appeal, First Division, as the opinion of this court. It is as follows:

“Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of nonsuit rendered against her in an action for personal injuries.
“At the time of the accident she was walking east on Seventh street in downtown Los Angeles, looking into the show windows of the building occupied by the defendant. Somewhere near the center, of this building bn the Seventh street side there was a recess from which a stairway led to the basement. This recess from a point about five feet from the sidewalk which was immediately adjacent to the building, was almost entirely occupied by the stairway, which was ten feet in width.
“Plaintiff, intent upon a suit of clothes in the window walked around the corner of the show window on Seventh street into the entry and stepped into the stairway, receiving injuries for which she claims damages. She testified that she did not look down at the pavement on which she was walking, that she did not see the stairway nor know it was there, Her entire attention was fixed upon the suit in the window.
“The evidence shows without conflict that plaintiff heedlessly walked into an open stairway in broad daylight. She ■ was a pedestrian on a busy street, paying no attention whatever to where she was walking. The trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for a nonsuit.
“The owner of property, in so far as an invitee is concerned, is not an insurer of safety but must use reasonable care to keep his premises in a reasonably safe condition and give warning of latent or concealed perils. He is not liable for injury to an invitee resulting from a danger which was obvious or should have been observed in the exercise of reasonable care. (Shanley v. American Olive Co., 185 Cal. 552 [197[*513] Pac. 793]; Mautino v. Suiter Hospital Assn., 211 Cal. 556 [296 Pac. 76].)
“A person walking through the busy streets of a large city is charged with the knowledge that there are many open stairways leading to basements of mercantile establishments. There is no duty to give any warning in broad daylight of the presence of a stairway and persons must use their eyes to protect themselves from such obvious dangers. (Woolworth & Co. v. Conboy, 170 Fed. 934 [23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 743]; Hunnewell v. Haskell, 174 Mass. 557 [55 N. E. 320].)
“The case of Murphy v. Broadway Improvement Co., 189 App. Div. 692 [178 N. Y. Supp. 860], upon which appellant chiefly relies, is not determinative of her case. The accident in that case occurred at night, in a stairway not in general use and 18 inches inside the building line. It was held that the sufficiency of the lighting was a question of fact for the jury, the defendant owing the duty to maintain the entrance to the building passageway and lights, so that they were reasonably safe for all persons using the premises and themselves exercising due care. In the present case, as has been stated, plaintiff by her own testimony showed an entire lack of care for her own safety.
“The trial court received in evidence over the objection of the defendant, an ordinance of the city of Los Angeles requiring a center handrail in stairways more than seven feet in width. The stairway into which plaintiff fell did not have such a rail. Plaintiff insists that by the violation of such ordinance defendant was guilty of negligence as a matter of law and that she is, therefore, entitled to recover.
“The evidence shows that the lack of the handrail was neither the proximate nor any cause of plaintiff’s fall. Any violation of the ordinance by the defendant would, therefore, be immaterial. Even if the defendant was negligent in the violation of the ordinance, that fact would not preclude the court from finding that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law. (David v. John Breuner Co., 167 Cal. 683 [140 Pac. 586] ; Wagy v. Brave, 133 Cal. App. 413 [24 Pac. (2d) 209].) The undisputed evidence showing a lack of due caution on the part of the plaintiff precludes her right to recover. (Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi, 101 Cal. App. 748 [282 Pac. 392, 283 Pac. 86].) ”

The judgment is affirmed.