Sheckles v. Clinton Construction Co.

This is an action prosecuted by plaintiffs to recover damages for injuries sustained, due to the alleged negligence of the defendants. The case was tried before the court without a jury. Judgment went for plaintiff Katherine M. Sheckles, in the sum of $500, and for her husband, coplaintiff Walter B. Sheckles, in the sum of $387. From the judgment entered, the defendants present this appeal.

There is no dispute as to the fact that plaintiff Katherine M. Sheckles was injured while walking on a temporary plank sidewalk constructed by the defendants along the north side of the Lane building, situated at the southwest corner of Spring and Eighth Streets, Los Angeles, and that as a result of falling, plaintiff Katherine M. Sheckles broke one of the small bones of her left ankle.

The findings of the court were: “That said temporary sidewalk was not even, but was constructed of pieces of rough boards of irregular length and that the same was so carelessly, negligently and dangerously constructed as to be dangerous for pedestrians to walk upon. That upon the west end of the said temporary sidewalk where the same reaches the point opposite the alley in the rear of the said building, the said defendants negligently constructed the said temporary sidewalk in such a manner that one of the boards at a point where there was a step from the said temporary sidewalk to the public alley extended about one and one-half inch beyond the other boards constituting the surface of the said temporary sidewalk; that the construction of the said sidewalk was carelessly and negligently installed and that the same was not done in a good and workmanlike manner and that the defendants did not use the care required of them in the construction of said sidewalk, and that by reason of the negligence and want of ordinary care in the construction thereof, the said sidewalk, at the point above mentioned, was dangerous to the life and limb of the pedestrians walking upon the said temporary sidewalk. ¡The

The only ground of appeal urged by appellants is that the evidence does not support the findings. It is first urged by appellants that the testimony does not support the findings that plaintiff tripped on the projecting board, and that there is no evidence in the record showing what particular thing caused or was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s fall. The evidence is undisputed that one or more of the boards on the step projected somewhat beyond the other boards. It is also undisputed that plaintiff fell while stepping from the step in the sidewalk. While the evidence is not entirely clear as to what caught the heel of plaintiff’s shoe, yet we believe that under all the circumstances there was some evidence to support the finding of the trial court that plaintiff’s heel caught on the projecting board. Where there is some evidence, though slight, to support the finding of the trial court, the judgment will not be reversed on appeal. Plaintiff was the only witness who testified as to the manner of the fall. She testified: “Why, I was walking with these friends as I stated, and when I reached the end of the board of the board walk, I stepped off with my right foot, and my left foot was caught in a manner that it held in such a way that it threw my whole body forwards. . . . my left foot was hung under me in such a manner that I was thrown forward, ... A. Something caught my heel and held it firmly, as though it was in a vise. . . . No, I hardly think my foot turned before I stepped. I think that my fall was from being held up because I had a sensation that I will never forget to my dying

It is further urged by appellants that the evidence does not support that portion of the first finding, namely, that the construction of the temporary sidewalk was carelessly and negligently installed; that the same was not done in a good and workmanlike manner; and that the defendants did not use the care required of them in the construction of the said sidewalk. The witness George H. Fru.eb.ling, called on behalf of plaintiffs, testified that he measured and made plats of the sidewalk on the morning after the accident. He further testified as follows: “Q. Now, what condition did you find the ends of those boards in, which constituted the temporary sidewalk, that intersected with the alley of the sidewalk itself ? A. They were very irregular. ... Q. Go on and state what irregularities you found in the ends of those boards. A. I found that the third and fourth boards from the outside of the sidewalk had a projection greater than any of the rest of the boards. . . . Q. Now, you may state to the court what condition you found them in with reference to projections. A. I found that these two boards, that I have mentioned, the third and fourth boards from the- outside of the sidewalk, the one—the third board had a projection of nearly one and three-quarters inches beyond the riser, and by the riser I mean— . . . This is Exhibit 2. Mark it one and three-quarters inches at the point you have indicated. Is that correct? A. Yes, sir, and at the inside of the fourth board from the outside of the sidewalk, I found a projection of one and one-eighth inches from the riser. . . . Is that beyond the edge of the other corresponding board?

The judgment is affirmed.

Houser, Acting P. J., and York, J., concurred.